Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRE Young Subdivision Survey Map (10)Rocky, To clarify the parcel at issue - Bill and Sandy Young, under Sandra Butler Young Trust, owner, have made application for a subdivision of the lot on which they reside. Their entrance to the parcel is connected by an access driveway to the residence of Vincent and Tammy Marino. The Marino’s own the driveway. The Young Trust has restrictive easement rights to the Marino’s driveway. There are two cross access easements. One is for an existing cross access easement to other property (Marino’s driveway) to access the parcel being subdivided. The other is a proposed cross access easement on the parcel being subdivided (Young Trust) to provide access to and from each lot that is being proposed in the subdivision of the parcel. The preliminary questions posed in my email pertain to compliance. What the codes ask are what I’m really asking, how does this plan work? I don’t understand it. Also, I don’t understand why the City chose to omit important recorded documents that apply and which have a direct bearing on important initial code and standards issues. I must ask, if I or you or anybody else buys either one of these subdivided lots, what have we bought? I think you or I or others would assume that the City made sure through its review that the subdivided lots complied with codes and standards. Do they? Thanks for your assistance. Best regards, Charlie Charles Hartley 399 Holman Road Cape Canaveral, FL 32920 321-783-8367 mobile 321-795-2775 chartleycrm@cfl.rr.com From: Rocky Randels [mailto:R.Randels@cityofcapecanaveral.org] Sent: Sunday, March 15, 2015 8:30 PM To: chartley@cfl.rr.com Subject: RE: Young Subdivision Survey Map Charles; Thank you for the encouragement. I am not aware of the entire plan, but I believe it results from the purchase of the section of Holman Road in front of Earl McMullen’s home. Our previous sewer line is now in his section of the street, I think. I will meet with our City Manager on Tuesday to better understand, and try to explain what we are trying to achieve. Thanks for selecting our Community as your choice for your Home. Rocky From: Charles Hartley [mailto:chartley@cfl.rr.com] Sent: Saturday, March 14, 2015 9:38 AM To: Rocky Randels Subject: RE: Young Subdivision Survey Map Rocky, Thank you. I really appreciate your interest. I certainly understand a busy schedule and how involved you are. I’m complimented that you’ve taken the time to respond. I’m simply confused over this submittal and seeking clarifications. I must emphasize one thing that I’m really baffled about and just don’t understand is this interpretation for a narrow review of the Legal Description with the omission of important recorded documents pertaining thereto. I look forward to the City’s comments. Thanks greatly for your assistance. With kindest regards, Charlie Charles Hartley 399 Holman Road Cape Canaveral, FL 32920 321-783-8367 mobile 321-795-2775 chartley@cfl.rr.com <mailto:chartley@cfl.rr.com> From: Rocky Randels [mailto:R.Randels@cityofcapecanaveral.org] Sent: Friday, March 13, 2015 10:38 PM To: chartley@cfl.rr.com <mailto:chartley@cfl.rr.com> Subject: RE: Young Subdivision Survey Map Charles; Thank you for keeping me in the Loop. Sometimes we as City Council are the last to know of these events and that is when they are on our Agenda, for a vote. I have not received the information yet on Mr. Young’s request for his renewed interest for this Lot Split, unless it was in a recent weekly City Report, as I have been in Washington, D.C. working on a Grant from Dept. of Transportation for improvements for A-1-A . I will inquire Monday. Thanks Again for the heads-up. Rocky From: Charles Hartley [mailto:chartley@cfl.rr.com] Sent: Friday, March 13, 2015 4:39 PM To: Kim Kopp; David Dickey Cc: Patrice Huffman; Angela Apperson; David Greene; Rocky Randels; johnpekarpe@gmail.com <mailto:johnpekarpe@gmail.com> ; John Cunningham; info@campbellsurveying.com <mailto:info@campbellsurveying.com> Subject: RE: Young Subdivision Survey Map Kimberly, I look forward to your response. Thank you for giving this further consideration and review. Best regards, Charlie Charles Hartley 399 Holman Road Cape Canaveral, FL 32920 321-783-8367 mobile 321-795-2775 chartleycrm@cfl.rr.com <mailto:chartleycrm@cfl.rr.com> From: Kim Kopp [mailto:kkopp@orlandolaw.net] Sent: Friday, March 13, 2015 12:52 PM To: chartley@cfl.rr.com <mailto:chartley@cfl.rr.com> ; 'David Dickey' Cc: 'Patrice Huffman'; 'Angela Apperson'; 'David Greene'; 'Rocky Randels'; johnpekarpe@gmail.com <mailto:johnpekarpe@gmail.com> ; 'John Cunningham'; info@campbellsurveying.com <mailto:info@campbellsurveying.com> Subject: RE: Young Subdivision Survey Map Good afternoon Mr. Hartley, We will review your questions and circle back with you early next week. Thank you, Kimberly Romano Kopp, Esq., LEED AP Brown, Garganese, Weiss & D’Agresta Senior Attorney 111 N. Orange Ave., Suite 2000 P.O. Box 2873 Orlando, Florida 32802-2873 Phone (407) 425-9566 Fax (407) 425-9596 Kissimmee (321) 402-0144 Cocoa (866) 425-9566 Website: www.orlandolaw.net <http://www.orlandolaw.net/> Email: kkopp@orlandolaw.net <mailto:kkopp@orlandolaw.net> Any incoming e-mail reply to this communication will be electronically filtered for "spam" and/or "viruses." That filtering process may result in such reply being quarantined (i.e., potentially not received at our site at all) and/or delayed in reaching us. For that reason, we may not receive your reply and/or we may not receive it in a timely manner. Accordingly, you should consider sending communications to us which are particularly important or time-sensitive by means other than e-mail. Confidentiality Note: This e-mail, and any attachment to it, contains privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual(s) or entity named on the e-mail. If the reader of this e-mail is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that reading it is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately return it to the sender and delete it from your system. Thank you. From: Charles Hartley [mailto:chartley@cfl.rr.com] Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2015 4:50 PM To: 'David Dickey' Cc: 'Patrice Huffman'; 'Angela Apperson'; 'David Greene'; 'Rocky Randels'; johnpekarpe@gmail.com <mailto:johnpekarpe@gmail.com> ; 'John Cunningham'; Kim Kopp; info@campbellsurveying.com <mailto:info@campbellsurveying.com> Subject: RE: Young Subdivision Survey Map Dave, I just noted, please correct Question Four to change “Marino’s easement” to Marino’s access driveway. Thank you for your assistance and response. Best regards, Charlie Charles Hartley 399 Holman Road Cape Canaveral, FL 32920 321-783-8367 mobile 321-795-2775 chartleycrm@cfl.rr.com <mailto:chartleycrm@cfl.rr.com> From: David Dickey [mailto:D.Dickey@cityofcapecanaveral.org] Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2015 3:38 PM To: chartley@cfl.rr.com <mailto:chartley@cfl.rr.com> Cc: Patrice Huffman; Angela Apperson; David Greene; Rocky Randels; johnpekarpe@gmail.com <mailto:johnpekarpe@gmail.com> ; John Cunningham; Kim Kopp; info@campbellsurveying.com <mailto:info@campbellsurveying.com> Subject: RE: Young Subdivision Survey Map Charles - thanks for the comments/questions related to the Young’s application for a lot split on Holman Road. I will be discussing your email with the City Attorney’s office. Dave From: Charles Hartley [mailto:chartley@cfl.rr.com] Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2015 2:53 PM To: David Dickey Cc: Patrice Huffman; Angela Apperson; David Greene; Rocky Randels; johnpekarpe@gmail.com <mailto:johnpekarpe@gmail.com> ; John Cunningham; Kim Kopp; info@campbellsurveying.com <mailto:info@campbellsurveying.com> Subject: RE: Young Subdivision Survey Map David, Thank you for meeting with me and providing a copy of the plat survey and review comments of the City Engineer John Pekar, PE and John Cunningham, Assistant Fire Chief. I also thank you offering an opportunity to seek a better understanding of this proposed development. As you know my property joins Holman Road and the Marino’s access driveway. My preliminary questions pertain to code interpretation arising from a review of the Young’s Subdivision Plat survey and documents pertaining to that plat survey. Based on the City’s file, this plat survey and the “Opinion of Title” appears to be the only development documents provided for City Staff, Fire Safety and City Engineer review? 1. My first question – does the proposed lot split achieve code compliance for a legal cross access easement? According to the plat survey that was provided to the City, there’s a “ingress and egress, utilities and access” easement on the lot to be subdivided which is 20 X 150 ft and runs parallel to and borders the south property line of the Marino’s property. The plat survey shows the 20 foot easement overlapping the 10 foot setback line. The easement is shown to be within the property included within the new lot No. 1 and not a part of the existing parcel that forms Lot No. 2, which contains the residence of the principal property owner. Importantly, the west property line of Lot No. 1 crosses the entire width of the parcel. This not only creates a landlocked situation for Lot No. 2, but Lot No. 2 becomes dependent on Lot No. 1 to grant an ingress and egress easement for access road and utilities. This is not a platted easement as per Surveyor’s Note No. 1, and it is not show otherwise or it’s intended use clearly stated in the Plat Notes or Plat Report. Please see Sec. 98-41 Information required, (a) (5) (D) which read as follows: (5) Show, at a minimum, the following existing conditions on the plat: (D) Easements, including location, width and purpose. The ingress and egress easement shown on Lot No. 1 described above is a proposed easement and it does not presently exist. No legal description is provided for it. An ingress and egress easement cannot be created by a preliminary plat survey drawing. Logically the ingress and egress and utility easement would flow from the primary property owner to a new lot owner and not vice versa. Therefore the one who owns the land and who is creating the new lot is the party who would grant easement rights to another party by deed. It is an established tenant of Florida law that an owner cannot grant an easement to themselves. A property owner cannot assign or deed a cross access easement to themselves as a matter of law. If a cross access easement doesn’t exist on Lot No. 1 nor be legally created and recorded, can legal access be achieved and importantly, does a legal cross access easement exist? 2. Second question - Again pertaining to a review of the submitted plat survey and legal description, the legal description in neither the plat survey nor the “Opinion of Title” included page two (2), “See Reverse Side,” of the original recorded Jahn-Butler Deed, or the “Restrictive Covenant” that provided the language regarding legal access and entitlements to the existing easement. Please note: The legal description provided reflects a corrected scribner’s error for Bk 6929, Pg 121. Page 2 is found on Bk 1629, pg 122. The scribner’s error correction did not reform page two of the original deed legal description. The Restrictive Covenant was recorded after this correction was made. This is a compliance issue of Sec. 98-41 (g), Information Required and Sec. 98-66 (c) (2), Lot Splits. Can proper review be accomplished without a complete legal description including all legal agreements for property rights and in particular, entitlements pertaining to easements? This could have an impact on code interpretation and review considerations for the development. I understand that the City Attorney has given an opinion that the recorded “Restictive Covenant” between the Marino’s and Young’s that clarified the benefits and burdens of the Jahn – Butler and now Marino - Young easement is a private agreement and as such, the City does not have to consider it at all. However, this does not relieve a Professional Surveyor from preparing a survey map for real property improvements to show the complete legal description on the plat survey map along with any Notes or Reports. Any descrepancies and inconsistences between the real property description and the survey map must be shown, i. e., right-of-ways, easements and other real property concerns. The plat map survey, submittal and layout must conform to the requirements of FAC 5J-17.052. The recorded Restrictive Covenant runs with the land and specifically refers to the Young’s “proposed lot” and to the language found on Pg 2 of the Jahn – Butler Deed. It specifically states on Pg 3, par. 1 that “the easement [is] for the benefit of both the existing and proposed lot, subject to the following covenants and restrictions, which the parties agree will run wih both parcels of the above described land and bind both parties, their respective heirs, executors, administators and assigns.” I further also understand the City narrowed the scope of City’s review of the interpretation “to whether said access exists.” The issue is not just “access” for purposes of ingress and egress only. The issue is for a “perpetual cross access easement,”see Sec. 98-66 (f) (4). The City’s definition of “access easement” means an easement “dedicated and used for utilities and utility vehicles.” Please note that the requirements for an easement arise from Sec. 98-41 (b) (5) (D), “Easements, including location, width and purpose.” The issue is therefore, whether the “location, width and purpose” will permit the necessary services for utilities, vehicles, fire and emergency vehicle access in compliance with building codes, ordinances and standards. It is broader and deeper in scope and meaning for the purposes of plat survey review than just access for purposes of ingress and egress to the property. We do not know how or to what extent the language found on Pg 2 of the Jahn – Butler Deed and the “Restrictive Covenant” that clarifies the scope and use of existing easement would have on the review and approval process for this new lot. Again, this, is a compliance issue. I urge the City to reconsider the application of a complete recorded Legal Description to the plat review process. 3. Third question - The plat survey included “Easement Dedication” for public use, fire and emergency access and the installaton and maintenance of utilities, but did not specify which or what easement; however, it stated, “no other easements are dedicated or granted,” please see Sec. 98-41 (b) (5) (D). The plat needs to clarify what “easement” or “easements” are to be dedicated? 4. Fourth question – Again, the City’s definition of “access easement” means an easement “dedicated and used for utilities and utility vehicles.” If the answer to No. 3 above it that the dedication applies only to the utility easement within the site plan itself and does not include dedication of utilities within the Marino’s easement, where is the utility easement(s) which provide utilities to the new lot No. 1 per Sec. 98-41 (b) (5) (D). Thank you for your assistance and response to the these initial plat map review questions. With kindest regards, Charles Hartley 399 Holman Road Cape Canaveral, FL 32920 321 783-8367 chartley@cfl.rr.com <mailto:chartley@cfl.rr.com> Florida has a very broad public records law. As a result, any written communication created or received by the City of Cape Canaveral officials and employees will be made available to the public and/or media upon request, unless otherwise exempt. Under Florida Law, email addresses are public records. If you do not want your email address released in response to a public-records request, do not send electronic email to this entity. Instead, contact our office by phone or in writing Florida has a very broad public records law. As a result, any written communication created or received by the City of Cape Canaveral officials and employees will be made available to the public and/or media upon request, unless otherwise exempt. Under Florida Law, email addresses are public records. If you do not want your email address released in response to a public-records request, do not send electronic email to this entity. Instead, contact our office by phone or in writing Florida has a very broad public records law. As a result, any written communication created or received by the City of Cape Canaveral officials and employees will be made available to the public and/or media upon request, unless otherwise exempt. Under Florida Law, email addresses are public records. If you do not want your email address released in response to a public-records request, do not send electronic email to this entity. Instead, contact our office by phone or in writing Florida has a very broad public records law. As a result, any written communication created or received by the City of Cape Canaveral officials and employees will be made available to the public and/or media upon request, unless otherwise exempt. Under Florida Law, email addresses are public records. If you do not want your email address released in response to a public-records request, do not send electronic email to this entity. Instead, contact our office by phone or in writing Florida has a very broad public records law. As a result, any written communication created or received by the City of Cape Canaveral officials and employees will be made available to the public and/or media upon request, unless otherwise exempt. Under Florida Law, email addresses are public records. If you do not want your email address released in response to a public-records request, do not send electronic email to this entity. Instead, contact our office by phone or in writing Florida has a very broad public records law. As a result, any written communication created or received by the City of Cape Canaveral officials and employees will be made available to the public and/or media upon request, unless otherwise exempt. Under Florida Law, email addresses are public records. If you do not want your email address released in response to a public-records request, do not send electronic email to this entity. Instead, contact our office by phone or in writing Florida has a very broad public records law. As a result, any written communication created or received by the City of Cape Canaveral officials and employees will be made available to the public and/or media upon request, unless otherwise exempt. Under Florida Law, email addresses are public records. If you do not want your email address released in response to a public-records request, do not send electronic email to this entity. Instead, contact our office by phone or in writing 㿕俖���󳲟���捗眐öၒ쁊⁘数⁷陹攠阀珱䃇ჰ㹩녠ヴ戠塡ﮀ璑耾ﱙ⁡‐倥 敷殐ﾯ뿦쿧�￪俲῭⿮ﾯ뿷쿸�漎漀㿢俣㼗ǿˏϟӯۿ܏ᬟট＿伊弋漌缍ἣ鼏꼐뼑቟Ꮟᓟᗯ៿吋ｮヾ懼꿈�켜�？⇿∏⤟⑯┿詏㞙ꠡﾌἩ켽伦弧＿ཁ輪鼫⳿⶯⺿⿏ミ៯㌯᦯ｏ弚漛༵ἶ⼷㼸伹强㯿㱯䅿䉿䎏䒟媯䙏総�䠰䧯ﳵ聱嶠乀ﱷ䰰䴿晏罠衼橩陭扐灦䭤廰ヰ√釻﹤幰㋰㠶橑梠楥⁹年㧰㏎ꁪ큪楐“攀硟〰〲멟樱 玠냽都艤ᦰ灟敧ၭ큈灪ɧ湀䒀㘰䄰艁謮䄰䉂䕄酪䫫歠䓑탼䱣挀雐ꗱ歓溠污₲恦柼䵯呱囿ꤏ慯承ﮏ齣홉䱁䨀䩠䯏曟ﶏ样伟厏呿犏瓿／뽗콘�｛ཝ὞⽟惿逿鄿豏疟盟矯秿꼏ὺ⽻㽼࢏楋拐ゕＹ刑譯읐颠潐聰Ɒ䔠煳餮肠䕌䑅䄠結￯ｾྀᾁ⾂㾏刿઎苿蓿蔏鼟蟏蠿襏詟ｯ羋辥龍꾎뾏쾐�錟闿阏霟긯䊱潲矔饮䞠Ⴅ鹧ﳐ뛐饥ﮠ楰⾬䤦▐�긦⁈륄⌯㠸ㄲ儷濫꺀䅈ﭧ傰驡鮟鲯鶿黏￟羮ﾠྡྷᾣ⾤㾥侦徧ꣿꥯꩿ쪏갏궯꺿꿏翟ﾱླᾴ⾵㾶㓓豓湥Ⴭ瑁�ﴀ䃿 쉹쌿쑏앟�폿ﾏ鿔彈㽤佥潧忢࿀쇿숟�왏쟟죯쮿？⿌㿍俎忏꿲㿣㿕忥ힿ�綏ㄠ⃧⹰传源驐癠旂畓瑩쁱ね涻蘿ㅬ㇮遊襍䩜ὰო濲ꛪ慎珵⹐ᅏ瀂潂͸㢰㌷ѯԏ؟ܯ紿适÷㑮潤ꂙｆ櫁懐࠳淠ⴠ）་Ἄࠍ栄惼쁱㐨㜰⧈㐠郬㤭⃮ヮྏုᄿ቏絟慆쀈Ꮏ㿚ᒁᗏᛟ៯緿悘椠淐፥ັㆀᄔ๿溱ᨰ᭏ᱟᵯ絿ﾰຠ⡠ᐸᒐ‘⼡㼢伣롽净ΰ熁＠俭忮￡쿹�⿥࿾｟簯퇿ญ桠크ͦ䃷ၒ灴⼺眯㡽⸐쀳錍÷〸ოꙴ䴯泰晲债✃⺰節奈䕐恒䥌䭎㜠㢟綩紦ㅎ 债獲捜曠就汵漵뼭켮ﯯ㿿㰄瑟輪鼫濯䛧䟏⼟☮➏ﾟ꼨迵꽅㽉輿齀꿻꼰㇟㊿㏏㓟䗰샷ღ㨺⩮먐뵚懰ᬰｑ輶嬢�㫠歫駽䁱尸伹强昻⽠㥡㷿㺟撪㧯儁䡟庿䨿￟㽐佑轫潓㼯轕ꃦ탷槺遌噩壿夏ܥ￑彯㽜佝轸⿫㿬Ὥ⽮槿箏￟྄轰齱꽲뽳콴�盿矯秿稏錟簟紿靏ﾯ潿羀辁龂꾃뾄쾅�蟿裯諿謏谟唯썏龑淩湁⁹聍낪ꢣˠ⃀ⵥ扛㜠�ꥰ 삮롨ꏠ褀ꂭ畭烜慣�涀킦꡷㻰抠큢ﱥ瑣낷ꊯ傰傭끢—郹敠녤�鎑辟ꭃꐢꛨ涡羲辳㢻ꄍ餏눀뙟둟癹 物㥵傐⹳龸꾹袷桔꿗뇐궕烂±뭣꾐傭倷㹳뺐䶰Ꚁ捵깨끥궀迂鹀낚ო乤ꅿ䲢鋗ꏯ朇삡椨̮瀢悏�꽠뇠湓悏憮ꂿｩဃႲꆾꆩ舃ꆾ冱ᓻ렐搥큢ÀƲꇀ倷懞슭炻瀂�꾑휀ꆾ释那൮矠쟹⁩졹깢롴찥ɿ翠考鋀ꀤꆮꕮოɲ䅰ꩣ犰慣柾©ꇍ耓逾Ⴒ꫿邰ภꥀ郡൐궰꿂｛ク톮炻ꁃႯ悞ꇻ꾑揠逾悞©鿂꿃쓿얿ễ원䶠술젡쭐�臐䆐Ǔ燍큢쫁ﮠ뇔悏ꥨ쯡ꚡ껐Ȅｰ羖辗龘꾙뾚쾛��ꃯꄏꈟꌯꐿꕏꙟ罯羧辨龩꾪뾫旬怤ｮ끢考傭ë䈪肾꿿긡 ഄ෠뢡츑㬱쫰ﾱ뇚톮考热뿷읡敀퀂틶쏒럴귿뉡꼰䷣욀직닠０탯犱珋熻僈䁍苼䴗掀뭠摀⡬ｳန뇉틆僮꿖뿗濬업滞쏻珼䛝﵉쨔ﾑ㋓Ͻ߶悭ク拇㓽藻읹榡෠ﳠ敕�쨠ﰠ삢בּꃆǓ豢뉐줣쟡뿡Ｃ펮㼆䌇㋒ꋕ뇜*쟿遃눠쬐펦쾣꿲뼰䃮炐ꆮ熿Ⴏ졢ﺱͤ튳븲춐읱ҧﻩ꿯￿༁훙⇝녲爀臆賿쾀ố握꽠탐㞢﹐ffੁ폧즲⯡끄폏녦洀铍祳ࡀ쬀빀溁쵫뮒ﾼ迡ｮ￬࿮ﾌྎᾏ⾐鈯ṏᏟ➏��ｏ＝翣迤鿥꿦뿧쿨῵ゲ煟ﴯ⺑㏯㔏ｯ 뿩쿪�⼟㼠伡弢漣⓿╿⚏㶟⭟鍏闿䘏Ｏ꼬뼭켮�Ｑ轊ἴ㥿氿䴈㝁㰬叿哯盿㽭戆金偃윺慠㮠嫥ⶄ킮㩰뀻ヵႲ⌀㕂㑃䙄䬠㑀灘텤㪲䀳⁂ヾꇀᕞ㼼ὗ⽘缺輻忓䜯㳾拫�༾㿧呦퉡掀䊀꬯㩃�朵䘩鄚䰺｟潍༸♙쉋㩦㽲㽨佩檿歟汯浿溏랟䏱邾홳뭰ₐ핈㿱굀子旫퀯桐捦글긢원픺繰䀄晣郝逖⻾醭�⃱냒ꉆ₁뇑瘁篠奈䕐䱒䤸䭎悴ᾀ⢁絽걓퉁犰䝳尐ႁ︱활杀萩腟琧丿瓹㭳卡嵠Ｇ༩辋ቶ㇮ű嬰儐꺍轾㽦垒왓烑猌枿ঊ熾ñ摳Ï郶鍍偑燕㈱郶〲ₐ㨴伵倀 轍뿯ﾐྒᾓ⾔㾕㢞䱔最㾗侘ꚷ䐧】⅜낯繫❀�ﾝྟꁷꄟ揩ﾢྤᢥ蝐烔脏탈畈晦❴ꔻ䆐샓僑�䍰챐넡ꕒ䞴탆斪励뽒殐샐롒ﴡ녳ꥐ躏ꥯ缟蜯櫳ၪ渐₲八뉐䀠柾揝辁龂꾃㾹䒺྆蝿봚覯訿뙏貯녬䩡삿푰퐰퍀ເ浀冱䯾䃚デ쁛ぉ뾴쾵㿄랟蟯﫳膢䀀烰ᥢ炴ñ쀑๹뫁뭟뱯ｿ俌嫍྿᪇ῑ矍濃㿃쫿谏ꚨꞏꢟ좯ꨏꯏ䦖扵ᅪ鞀긟馯䕒샵໰ﴁ�퀿ㇻá勍憚䙰䞏ﾟ轋彰潱뽎콏�뿜ｒ惿㚿㜿Ｏ㿵⽢㽣佤忦콇�ﺿ勞罟轕翼뼇꿹뿺 쇻홶덭惻愒杲⁞ꉛשּׂ槀惡畡ႈ༻安瑀蠽洐朐ᐋ놥ⱥ﷿﹟ɯ͟ѯտڏடﾟ꼌뼍켎�１༓演ᗿｿƏ᚟៟ᣯ⣿ｏἛ⼜㼝伞弟漠缡輢⍕䦚샀癵⃠摥傚㽰נּ뀀䓀ꌀ傁䇡儠絵瓀䋥䛾烤ꀯႈ聽ꆱ忊☰㠣鬲✐㤛㜳頬熚⁞㩯㭿ㆁ��ⰲ綘㣐洢켽㯵ㆂ�餴㤩㷑㹯덿輿鉀捡낰჻팠睥゚�젏⳯ￏＤＩ༫Ἤ⼭㼮伯ヿㅟ㉯㍿㒏㖟冯䰟Ｏ༦ἧｚ轍齎꽏뽐콑勿叟哯囿圏堟夯娿ꍏ놢ᄺ⁰恸暿滀暡﯀瘠渐놰듽‱쁿遶灸{作惿愿扏损摯敿暏枟ﾯ뽨콩�ｬ뽶콱 彝廿聯玟琯甿葏瞟硯ｿ켈�㾉龋�ｻཽ纷缟踯䉙ᄹ兰衧ﳠ獤弔�ﾇྉ諿輟速鄯鈿鍏鑟镯ｿ辖�羙ﾂ྄ᾅ�鳿곿齏ꀟꄯꈿꍏꑟ흯羥辦鮧왃狠Ü㇜ꣿꦏ궟꺏꾟낯놿닏￟ﾴྶᾷ⾸㾹羧쾻볿꫟ꮯ붿븯뼿쁏콟ﾯ翂迃鿄꿅뿆쿇�멓炝⁰퍈璐郙ｹ鿋꿌鿐꿑뿒쿓�홿���󛰿�㍟㥤�濐ﭬ㦰剠濸摡忟濠翡迢鿣挟⿭㿮慃灰