HomeMy WebLinkAboutRe Ordinance change lot split East Central and Ridgewood (71)Doing good thank you!
Wes Morrison
Mayor
City Hall Office
100 Polk Avenue
Cape Canaveral, FL 32920
www.CityOfCapeCanaveral.org
On Sep 15, 2022, at 8:00 PM, Patrick CFL <patrickcampbell@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
________________________________
Warning-This email originated outside the City of Cape Canaveral mail system. Please review the sender's address. Report any suspicious mail by using the Phishalert button in Outlook.
If that is not possible forward the suspicious mail to phishalert@cityofcapecanaveral.org
________________________________
How are you doing?
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 15, 2022, at 7:48 PM, Wes Morrison <W.Morrison@cityofcapecanaveral.org> wrote:
Pat,
This is to confirm receipt of your email below.
Thank you,
Wes Morrison
Mayor
City of Cape Canaveral <http://www.cityofcapecanaveral.org/>
Office: (321) 868-1220 x208
Cell: (321) 593-2335
100 Polk Avenue — P.O. Box 326
Cape Canaveral, Florida 32920
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.
From: Patrick Campbell <patrickcampbell@cfl.rr.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2022 10:01 PM
To: gentilquore11@gmail.com; dr.michaelmiller@outlook.com; flyyaker@earthlink.net; john@islandcremations.com; susiekoz@comcast.net; Mickie Kellum <m.kellum@cityofcapecanaveral.org>;
Wes Morrison <W.Morrison@cityofcapecanaveral.org>; Todd Morley <T.Morley@cityofcapecanaveral.org>; Angela Raymond <A.Raymond@cityofcapecanaveral.org>; Don Willis <d.willis@cityofcapecanaveral.org>;
David Dickey <D.Dickey@cityofcapecanaveral.org>; Kim Davis <council.davis@cityofcapecanaveral.org>
Subject: RE: Ordinance change, lot split East Central and Ridgewood.
________________________________
Warning-This email originated outside the City of Cape Canaveral mail system. Please review the sender's address. Report any suspicious mail by using the Phishalert button in Outlook.
If that is not possible forward the suspicious mail to phishalert@cityofcapecanaveral.org <mailto:phishalert@cityofcapecanaveral.org>
________________________________
City leadership still, a month later, has not provided anything that answers my questions about how David Dickey and Todd Morley recommended approval of the Dichristopher lot split.
I have not seen any measurements against the code, not been provided with any of the “in depth review” details nothing at all that shows any attention was paid to the requirements
of our ordinance. I did get an estimate of over a thousand dollars to meet my public record request for information.
From: Patrick Campbell <patrickcampbell@cfl.rr.com <mailto:patrickcampbell@cfl.rr.com> >
Sent: Sunday, September 11, 2022 8:13 PM
To: 'gentilquore11@gmail.com' <gentilquore11@gmail.com <mailto:gentilquore11@gmail.com> >; 'dr.michaelmiller@outlook.com' <dr.michaelmiller@outlook.com <mailto:dr.michaelmiller@outlook.com>
>; 'flyyaker@earthlink.net' <flyyaker@earthlink.net <mailto:flyyaker@earthlink.net> >; 'john@islandcremations.com' <john@islandcremations.com <mailto:john@islandcremations.com> >; 'susiekoz@comcast.
net' <susiekoz@comcast.net <mailto:susiekoz@comcast.net> >; 'm.kellum@cityofcapecanaveral.org' <m.kellum@cityofcapecanaveral.org <mailto:m.kellum@cityofcapecanaveral.org> >; 'w.morrison@cityofcapecan
averal.org' <w.morrison@cityofcapecanaveral.org <mailto:w.morrison@cityofcapecanaveral.org> >; 't.morley@cityofcapecanaveral.org' <t.morley@cityofcapecanaveral.org <mailto:t.morley@cityofcapecanavera
l.org> >; 'a.raymond@cityofcapecanaveral.org' <a.raymond@cityofcapecanaveral.org <mailto:a.raymond@cityofcapecanaveral.org> >; 'd.willis@cityofcapecanaveral.org' <d.willis@cityofcapecanaveral.org
<mailto:d.willis@cityofcapecanaveral.org> >; 'd.dickey@cityofcapecanaveral.org' <d.dickey@cityofcapecanaveral.org <mailto:d.dickey@cityofcapecanaveral.org> >; 'council.davis@cityofcapecanaveral.org'
<council.davis@cityofcapecanaveral.org <mailto:council.davis@cityofcapecanaveral.org> >
Subject: RE: Ordinance change, lot split East Central and Ridgewood.
I want to be sure everyone involved has as much information about this subject as possible. I hope you question and validate everything I present.
First, early 2021, there was an attempt to change the ordinance based on Mr. Dichristopher’s need and just let whatever BCPA says exists. There was no need to change the ordinance
and City Council did not take action on the recommendation to do so. My submittal to the City Council is Section A.
Then on August 3rd 2022 a recommendation by Mr. Dickey to approve a lot split for Mr. Dichristopher was presented to the Planning and Zoning Board. A summary of my comments is Section
B. I spoke at the meeting and made it clear and said twice, once at Mr. Russell’s request, the split literally does not fit the ordinance requirements.
On August 17, 2022, I asked to be provided the math and measurement method associated with Mr. Dickey’s recommendation to approve the split. I wanted to see how a conclusion that the
requested split met the size requirements defined by our ordinances. This information should have been available as part of the recommendation to allow the split.
“From: Patrick CFL [mailto:patrickcampbell@cfl.rr.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2022 7:38 AM
To: David Dickey <D.Dickey@cityofcapecanaveral.org <mailto:D.Dickey@cityofcapecanaveral.org> >; Wes Morrison <w.morrison@cityofcapecanaveral.org <mailto:w.morrison@cityofcapecanaveral.org>
>
Subject: Dichristopher lot split
Good morning. Please provide the document showing the math and measurement method associated with the determination that the lots resulting from the split meet the size and square
footing requirements of our ordinances”
During a meeting on September 6th 2022 among myself, Todd Morley and David Dickey, Mr. Dickey confirmed that in early 2021 the lot split process was discussed with Mr. Dichristopher.
Prior to the meeting I again asked for:
“So I can be equally prepared for our meeting, please provide the result of the in-depth review and the specific areas of the code that has been deemed inadequate and what the inadequate
points are. Also provide the comments/concerns from the attorney and consultant. I will expect to see the city evaluation of the split application against the code requirements.”
Today, I still do not have anything from the City that shows a review of the lot split application was compared to the ordinance requirements. The City is now claiming the words in
the ordinance are unclear. The words are not unclear, the words don’t fit the City’s narrative. If the words are unclear what was that not considered or discussed in January, 2021 or
in 2010, or 2017 when lot splits were discussed.
I have made sure all of my communications can be obtained by a public record request to the city.
I am asking Council for an independent review of the Dichristopher request beginning at the first contact with Mr. Dichristopher or his agent(s)
Section A.
On January 27th, 2021 Mr. Dickey presented rationale for changes to Ordinance No. 11- 2021; amending Chapter 98, Subdivisions, Division 5. — Lot splits. The same rationale was presented
to the City Council on February 16, 2021.
Mr. Dickey misrepresented the need for this ordinance change in order to gain the support of the Advisory Board and Council. The Board and Council did ask appropriate questions, but
the answers provided were structured such that the Board and Council would believe the need for the change was driven by a feeling of “providing relief to the innocents,” Mr. Dickey
and the city attorney’s characterization of the aggrieved parties.
The city attorney added to the drama of the situation saying “property owner, the former property owner that authorized and did the unauthorized lots, but still owns one lot and the
innocent third party owns another that's one factual scenario.” However, the information provided by Mr. Dickey in replying to my request for the properties the change affects does
not include that “factual scenario.”
Among the plethora of disingenuous statements made by city leadership, another stand out is the city attorney’s flawed scare tactic reasoning that the city would “literally have to
go back through 60 years of city records and the title of the property to see whether or not something is has been hasn't been done according to the city code.” In addition to the obvious
intent, coercing a favorable response by preying upon the audience’s fears, the attorney introduces the probability that there are more properties that have not been reviewed at the
“60 years” of history level and may also be unauthorized.
The city attorney did ask a very important question – “how do we issue a development permit when we don't even recognize the division of land that occurred?” I would like to know what
database or authoritative source does the city use to determine a parcel is good or bad, authorized or unauthorized, split or not? I would also like to know parcel number, dates and
requestor for every recorded lot split in Cape Canaveral.
The citizens of Cape Canaveral, the City Council and Advisory Boards deserve accurate, complete and unbiased staff work. In this case that has not been provided.
There is no need for this ordinance change. Part of the presentations and discussions explored how to fix the problem. There is no problem that the current ordinance doesn’t cover.
The fix is for the aggrieved parties to simply go back to county and combine the lots to match what the city has using essentially the same process used to split the lots. Then, if
desired, the aggrieved can come to the City to apply for a lot split through the proper process. Mr. Dickey’s emotional manipulation of the Council and Board, his experience of “personally
of having to tell a person persons that the lot that they have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars (three hundred thousand to the Council) on they cannot build on it it's a not a
not a pleasant thing to do” is intended only to influence the Board and Council toward approval without relevant, compelling and factual data.
Nothing is prohibiting the owners from building on property they own except compliance with the ordinances established by the citizens. The aggrieved parties can build on properties
they own by bringing their property into compliance with the City’s requirements. What they can’t do is by-pass the ordinances established by the citizens of Cape Canaveral. The City
should not facilitate the by-pass action by unnecessarily changing the ordinance at the expense of citizen visibility and input. These are not “innocents” who “through no fault of
their own” are in this position. Of the three owners of the properties in question, two are real estate agents and one is a citizen with an extensive relationship with the City regarding
property. All have superior knowledge of City requirements.
As presented to the Board and Council, the Brevard county approach to a lot split is “they just go ahead and record whatever survey that's presented that's put down on their on their
counter in front of them.” It is just as easy to go back to the County and configure the lot to match the city record. (Again, I don’t know what the city record is) Once combined, the
aggrieved parties can request a lot split properly through the City processes. The aggrieved can also just request a lot split right now, using the city’s existing process.
The City lot split process includes proper notification to the surrounding owners - “Special notice for residential lot splits. Any proposed lot split of a residentially zoned property
shall require special notice be provided to adjacent property owners at least 14 days prior to the planning and zoning board and city council hearings on the proposed residential lot
split. Said notices shall be provided by regular mail to adjacent property owners within 500 feet of the property subject to the lot split application, and shall include the address
and legal description of the subject property, and the date, time and location of the planning and zoning board and city council hearings. Notice of the planning and zoning board and
city council hearings may be consolidated into one notice. Notices provided under this subsection are hereby deemed to be courtesy notices only and the failure to provide or receive
said notices shall not be a basis of appealing any decision made under this section. Applicants shall be solely responsible for the cost of the notices required by this subsection.”
Mr. Dickey also told the Council in response to my concerns “having two homes on a parcel that's not what this is dealing with.” This is exactly about intentionally taking a parcel
intended for a single family home on a large lot, dividing it and building two homes. Mr. Dickey’s diversionary word play and semantics is offensive and insulting.
Mr. Dickey further misdirected the Council by saying “and for all intents and purposes if they would come in the door today for approval of that lot split the city probably would approve
it without a doubt because it complies with the minimum standards of the city.” At least one clearly does not. This seems to communicate to the Council that the decision doesn’t matter
because it would be done anyway. From a citizen perspective this attitude indicates a predisposition that citizen inclusion mandated in our ordinances is not important or even a consideration,
a theme that permeates the citizen visible activities of city leadership.
Another comment was “not a widespread” problem. As provided to me by Mr. Dickey and shown in the included map, it may not be widespread when viewed as in the City whole, but for residents
on Central and Surf it is substantial.
It is the proper notice and ability for the surrounding owners and citizens of Cape Canaveral to review and weigh in on a lot split that the City is attempting to avoid.
The splitting of these properties and subsequent variance requests and construction would change the texture of the neighborhood and the notice and hearings mandated by the existing
ordinance give members of the community the opportunity to understand and comment on what is being requested. The proposed change to the ordinance is not necessary and should NOT be
considered.
There is no urgency, only a desire by Mr. Dickey to by-pass the City ordinance for a select trio of owners.
Section B.
Good evening. I am Pat Campbell. I am a 40 year resident of Cape Canaveral and live at 307 Surf Drive. I am here tonight to voice my objections and compel you maintain the texture
of our neighborhood and deny the splitting of the Dichristopher lot at the northwest corner of Central and Ridgewood.
You have seen this issue before, but in disguise. During the Planning and Zoning Meeting Jan 27, 2021 Mr. Dickey presented this board with an Agenda Item - Comprehensive Plan Amendments
the Consideration and Recommendation of Ordinance No. XX-2021; an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cape Canaveral, Florida, amending Chapter 98, Subdivisions, Division
5. – lot splits . Mr. Dickey’s requested ordinance change essentially would have provided amnesty to anyone that had recorded a lot split with the county and thus avoid the process
required by the city. Fortunately, the City Council did not approve a change to the ordinance because it was not needed.
Through a painful series of back and forth questions and answers among myself, Mr. Dickey and the city the attorney, the reason, the starting point for the ordinance change request
at that time was the Dichristopher property split and the pending additional splits were properties at the end of Surf Drive and East Central
Among the disingenuous and misleading statements presented by Mr. Dickey during the January meeting the most egregious included:
• His reference to innocent parties that though no fault of their own have property they have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on but can’t build on
• His declaration to make it very clear, we're not talking about developers coming in and doing this, this is really for folks who are coming in they thought they had one
thing they don't and for no cause of their own they've found themselves in a bad spot
• And characterizing the magnitude of the problem as, less than 20 so it's not a widespread issue
The innocent Mr. Dickey is hoping to help get out of a bad spot, Mr. Dichristopher is a real estate professional that has accomplished around 300 property transactions in Brevard county
and is a named party in around 30 registered Florida corporations, many of which are real estate, development and investment related. Mr. Dichristopher is far from an innocent that
though no fault of his own has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on a property he can’t use.
The facts are, Mr. Dichristopher is a subject matter expert and nothing prevents him from building a single family home on an unsplit lot in harmony with the neighborhood.
While Mr. Dickey would like to characterize the magnitude of the problem as not widespread, the properties Mr. Dickey provided as issues - all the far east end of East Central and
Surf, represent 30 percent of the Surf Drive and East Central neighborhood.
Mr. Dickey has indicated that this issue is complicated because it “involves other government agencies.” Mr. Dickey is referring to the Brevard County Property Appraiser’s office and
the Brevard County Clerk of the Court. If there is a concern about the City not having the authority to approve lot splits then this request and the City’s lot split process has no
merit and the only topic for the board is can Mr. Dichristopher build on his county split lots. If there is a question about lot splits, City authority or County authority it is a matter
for the courts, not the Planning and Zoning Board. If there is not a question about authority and the City IS the authority, the issue is not complicated by the involvement of other
government agencies.
And to wrap up I will end with additional concerns about the Agenda Pack information. Mr. Dichristopher’s lawyer is presenting to the Planning and Zoning board a variance request in
the form of “In tandem with your consolidation of this application my client would also like the anticipated City approval to include clarification that the 25 foot building set back
along the “radius” of parcel 2 (as shown on the survey) would only apply to either the Central frontage OR the Ridgewood Avenue frontage, but not both.” This not only emphasizes my
position that the lot split and building two homes does not fit the character of our neighborhood, it literally does not fit, but this is not how a variance request should be made.
And last, the property information sheet describes the two properties and includes the words “less the West 25 feet. I don’t understand how those words apply and I don’t understand
why the package includes Restrictions, Party Wall Agreement that does not seem to have any bearing or relevance to this application.
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
Virus-free.www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
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.
採붥牠텱耖ᅮ添庀䵱솶�㇅ᅥ柢膲猨ԩ؏ਟ／Ἃ⼌㼜伎式漐缑輒ᒟᖯᚿ៏ᣟᳯᶯ켞弄缆輇鼈伫弬ⷿㅯ㈏㌟㐯㔿㙏㝟ｯ缸輹鼺輿ｄ꽁뽂콃�䡏䦿嗏䯟䳯仿伏�⽐㽑漚缛遚湓꼁ﻢ刯䓟⽯䙿䟏壟ｿ轙齚꽛뽜콝�｠招ꠏ俾矃Ⴤ뼷쑠伄꽧뽨핬昧敫탬ｰ傲쀦㇃늾Ω얿✱⧐섐넱伀瞱熣늰㇀ⴱᏄ※㞑脢̡惁筰澠㦰ﴸჅ술⏀숐얁猐퀣钀㔠삲↾郅בֿំ쒲繳篱쇙笒끈蟵쎬䘡敆牢ͷㇼ쐶搄리᭯旿星Ｏ㽗��Ὧ⽰㽱狿獏詟原呟啯譿跿／ᾎ⾏㾐
侑徒澓羔辕雷窒뒙猠傲榄醮胬쏿ℱꯂ쇑넰籨뗄뜂סּ脤깡꿠ꑰ猰胁單摁醀イ탬﹂띯↠뉅귄�뇂䆭ꂫ⑲❐쿰Ꮾ쒀畢탫珶뇆䊄⍯욠ﾳ=ꂆꃬ퀧䓁뿿깢蝳袟龯뭏껅뿚汵ꇬ陥⍰였꣠笍ꞩ❤曒ꣿ限╰顰饏驟腪ﻒ눳▄먀⌡蕱└﹡ꥯ⚐胀臰뻡窀꺙埒ꛮ섥
禀鼲ꇫ炴₳穩⏻ꍖ最䆺ꃬ㆝|蜰뚏띏靟魯鱟鵯ｿ辞龟꾠뾡쾢�澖쯿뵿뻯탿챟췟컯탿／ῑ⿒㿓俔忕濖範擠튲痮䂼ꀠ攣腿덠箰��뼏菋礰▟삒⊕漐멷绀聲☠翡됌慔뇽梐テ녻튮銯䊫꾿㷹슐뇁녳氁ↆꦠ먁쌢싧ꡖ귂뼱싇珮烂䆫蓰♦矡氀俈忉疸玮釂삆ၼ숮䣳郮뫿◕왂뉔벇窱�ᆫ䆧涑შ똤믏젅묁慊뵦☀뷰↼絯∱田僨듿쁔㱕ﳰ紐㿞俟忠濡翢ਯ࿏｟�－༏ἐ⼑㼒伓ᓳᕟ䅯
籭 ˡ㴲Ｐዱ䏩炀悁₯⁽㷿뀀羑Ё⌑װ밡쒱〽傲聰⠦Ｑ₯넄迄灼〣Ⴓ돽揱삆憺郃懁䀣糿 듃ⱶ뤃삤芒뎑笠$ꀀ될며꩒藑成앏꿠꣰냐畀둧㙀´礰쀩冲Ƭ̬コ瀽ꧯ꜂糤琀〽㼇伈ỿ룯걵箑뭰꣡０号酼鈄ꀣ톨冽뒟絰먠밀㮁满￠⌼䀄釴씀윫ﱐ䧤邼ꂂ剤门濼腢❀뷲筀箠肐缠₳冽䀱｢兼养낫ጩ䅻班邫䃿옒ײ먐ꤰⲁ㋕ㅁ䂰덤ʐ냥ㄱﻠ꽢蕠뒂덦㔰㘟㜯＿皸ㆳဦㆳ欂膴㌱鈄㳷댣脰敀戭薴鋀똲싿곳ꠁ⧁벒虰긠
ᇨ⍬릠摛ឯｿ漛缜輝鼞꼟뼠켡�⏿⓯哿問ᡟᦟ嚿콗�ｚཛྷὝ⽞㽟꽺ₗ臽℀澲쁽횰튁쀶眠ӿ댱⬁뒁널볡到Ȣﾀ舨ほ₳Ⴇ℺邼셴㷟㰱몱A㍒柠쀮惱膴갶洁쒰됃슁掀돻돀㿑㐿閹遠킦苨毞烂灴›膴荤䊐ﾰ쁭酀䁬䄨憼Ļ삳ґ⭃⣇䥢䩏楟ｯ疸僨넰Ⴇ刽닇邩₆ㇱ㺰㫰䢒搐優ࣱ㪿⩪捐䢐㩑㾕勯篳葻❅淐º퇮酼˿껡ǒ㩥뮡ﴒ㍲ffl文ᆫ끃踠ꤠﵠﾁ聮㽔｡ｦཨὩ⽪毿氿浏湟潯轿速振？⽤㽥辑龒꾓뾟쾕�響飯髿漏뇟齒㬐Ⲏ
ⱃ꼒렖䇢､텸퉑↼₳冺脽绿⡐䅑犒⚠䚱롁맱㽀え脭퀃醹歲쏿㽠씑粁仢Х㱴Ｃ훾㿈⾤徜侠御澢ꏿꑿꖏꚟꞯꢿꧏ鯟｟龸羝辞羽ﾹྻᾼ⾽뻿뼿쁏셟쉯썿ꮏⵂ鄫䂴끎偻鄫댽纠ͱｔ傰臶囩셃㧿䇠﹀㑳✤끡텀�籃硥退ㅍ偻剴釨硩靇뀩ｭ풰य䉺�䈄䕮Ւ羀臽菛菚鄫탐ｧ䃱⅒哶팂섹酲ı딱뗿뙯쵿ײַ㎑灠￢뇱솰え儽舴㋳큽Ͽ籐⬴㯇⣢⸀诒ퟀ￢삱舴僭ꋯ慇㋪ⵟ㥱螲�溃倪ｩ䄧삋ヶ㊇고뀭ွ솰ㇿ굣䁗蹁Ţ⟢贐ｘ㘲⠂냿
飿呅瀨逪ﻯڑ툱⸠烀ほ現ΰ㠿굌꿪⨳덐�ﾑ낃ͅኬꈅ儹ꄮ扑ㇿ㵀痦꺠癁⸢ﾡ亅弅ᗨܯᔱ䃇虨撐竿㍡☣⣑�겑球ゐﷰȳ㈨㤱˱Υ궇뻴⬩䑀⥳�뒐畃䁈⯧㴱贐瓂㐧両Ｖꄦ烑医Ὸ⿹䣦瓿窐⮣䆑贳㴒㹂Ｐ퀮〭낋㋖舴㎯菘熽眰猑郱ᇶ굷ﾠ焃쀼퀭ᅒ꒰ㇿ͂�䊡甠ᇶ鉼徵＋씏줿쨯쬿챏쵟칯ｿ迏鿐꿑뿒㿄輙忆濇ỿᩯᯯ᷿ḏ ℿ弢漣缤㈠㯠둗凑澐え싾艀㵷ѐ暁�ࣀ︣ﾲ䷒臙灾�뀢뇡훀Ｒ爓摀燙↲쁂聀篿䍐㺑ꭕ�
ࣳ筍Թ酃虢︀㛀䠸싦弖漗༮䛦궿譄痁坱朁�瓤ྑ㰱ⶐ凬㫿㯯躟ꭸ굃䲓篐Ｃ䊴脕ギ뉽呸鄕艳㳿蚑ⰲ글ܰ횑ﾂ圶嗩苼惙ᏽ镍ひ碿跀︴璀ಏ⟿⣟䓯䔟娯灔粁,烔䊴ቴ냾샔灾ᅉ竿粣瑀璠퓦ᗁ简Ｐ⛗ł턶ꍺ쉞Ꮃ끲俀哗쐄픶䟗㿿跷珱괶笱帐瞳１扌⊱냖ᅉ菘珔₄囿㨖�ྐ縰ጁ뿱ⓘ₳′霺鎭큷꽧닾嘸샴ａŁ嫲寏翟䗦ၵꋼ톇ꊉ ､냖ፎ⑭ꥈ鼥꼦鼪꼫⳿⻏ワ㋿㌏␟ﾟ彵潶꽘뽙뽶콷�蕿糿紏縟缯耿
腏䅘㖿ힲᆤ긟괒䈴ᄰዦᗲ眹ㄏꑠ섁ժ듐憡䯽憀鐑脑㋩㇡跿牀꿀ॐ鄁骹％섓쀎䄹㐇剢᚜掿㝁�輸�扰䦳莖響둣澯烏ෟ훺⟧耐杩傰飨颇⣀流ﺀᒰﹰ��珕頭�ߠ︐홏㻿璊杲；퐿䏫ࣳϱၧ踽˰轿辀霠굔ࣿﲱ琰ꃿꇟꋯ獅ᑡﶆ䗵�㛠脗菿蘏ྈᾉ⾊㾋侌徍澎羏胿믿밿葏蔯밿붟뺯쾿�ￂ࿄⿆㣇俟깗︳풰疀釮雳߿馆ᔁ弭匳@遍ᇶ�ﴒ驢楱郮㣲䅱끮掳髁͈烿᧞
⇾楺㺁㡡䱦Ǿ晴㈂ﻣྠ零勱橤逕ꆚ�俐㠥㙗꧕૱ࠢ礀눵ታ闰郲섇ؕ︱抲朑措는勻䅿乒܁���叀ꣿ傀�龑㳺涑｡釶⃓僕䌒ퟥ䠸픶爓鷩㖡퀰暐홡觢痸橢큒鎦愇濦翧ຏ阥ለ쟡�ᑴᕰⓣᗙ䒬դ兑ᗒੑ聭ၧ녣㧰劰攲徥䛹嘸ᓿ牋Ė걥椱䣿ǰ弄�斄＞䁤ℵ鋝༆ἇ⼈ꗯ⿺ﭿﰿꑏ픅䅐ꬡ䶒濰쟿Ѱ垂Ꙣ榱�।㖦ﾳ哥ꇛ写獣䇹遞ᑒɣ䯿撀㳰䡰ᆓꖳにƠၬ醯遡惯ꗿ想哵顁䅲毰厁０뿲剐メ邠킸͎↕棿ਡᛴ䷂뢐勐핁
PＡ�쐕腮瓾ᅉ�／狿ቶ欑淀쩂汰嘑ル쏝쌼큣⟸畴Սᗿ鹛↣≯⍿좏챿쵯ｿ迎鿏꿐뿑쿒�ￕ쟿⵿짏쪟㊯⾯〯ㄿ罏弲漳缴輵鼶꼷뼸摲䑀惚靫눱ꚣ뾰⅐ꚤ勯ꆝԦ౭ﶲ熫䵲忱湂叡染価ϰメ⅀耓懵Қɟ鿕鼱Ṱ鹂庤䑐º炕ᡴ鯠ኁꋡၬ੫仳厦鼣狥틝メ트鈦浡惯ꗿ丰丂珱�鏑�凥鄍輪鼫㽂֤㋾℁拾냣灊譍䁤塉꒹⅘旻卡犂ゥꁧꄊ㒥䯷䟰掱卐呫ǿഒ犐䗀ැ疑夼婿ﾏ⼺Ἶ⼿㽀佁㽥潃罄䗿䚏䞟㦯支㯿㱏㵟ｯ彧潨罩轪齫꽬뽭콮
濷烟䧯昝턗焖킦퀞墿顠骁䫄⧈ᬑ祰틛陿ǒ唒ﾓ厣B鯴牰�当ꗠղ鴁ﶡ䌄嗁閄鐲ﾠ䏸˫➪釘邠耦욇觿裴佱剑꠰˰순낭삸莍놫⇟膭≑ે噓淠浵｢ཤ竿⒯纖Őఠᴁꩳ鸦ﺤ縂꾡ꢑ귰ﾁꄜ抱̠肞삟놦놫૿נ䲑䨃說ҳṃ鞶ﾲᖩ䁓聽�ՙ礒䙰胛⇡脌穩烱₭Ƿ憰ῡ鳣ುഒ墐｠ꊙ臘肃퀞Ǡ놟⏰鿱ﾦồ铥菡酱鈟Ｏ㾓홛퀙넚慘ခ⋳僿ᱱҢ甀Ⅰᨡ늲牎凱ﹲ珄璯疿ￊ⇡醇ą뎊Ꭲ薕鿿♰剤塡ᢐ疒ﾀ茌
⃣澦羧狿盏瞿磏租端糿紏？⽾㽿侀콱澷ﾬྮ侼룿맏뫟믯뷿븏뼟쀯＿俁忂臟탽늂㊙˶䳿᳴儰�ꉡ冐ﭳ㊌ル�ᑱ䰩勑羠婉䏿ᇜ蚈헿샲罰쀄퇠爑ꔜ셏ꎱ荷풁蠑䎕鈌큏ꄥҿ峀厰唀䌃燱곷Ơ匒퀙샆熋唕뒡딯쬿쓟윏짿／Ὴ⿋㿌俍忎濏翐近쏿얿옯缿俩忪濫翬迭鿮꿯︠ੳͣ፳尵剣蓀鈌옦耕該ἠ䶁�솳㘌튟猝ᵃ菀蛑ﾐ恍ㆬ솚怗耨㋜捜惜槼遧ꥀ圂謳鬙�뭃ҡ끠扰អ䵂潠逛憐ｿ迹鿺꿻뿼쿽�忰Ἆၿ
ᆏኟᎯ켔�７༙녑劋锃䭔ñ담悳旑燬퍵諂牀䃡ꅌ燞ⳟ鑡Ұꬥ�疀膠톛蟿䷥塐낀뀂刁ꅀ�䚕ㄇ큒噲觐屠｣댰码쀀턬聘⁒抄�刂ꉀ⫀ꥄ₆ꁧﶢ僗鹭а锑饖豄�＂ခ늪㌷＋鼢䖔⅌Ͽ덡铁ⷂ폕⺤髂僲ｱゞ艍唭肃�漜龮눩ÿ蟲⼑騸㔄ꨘ̥꧰迡ꂄ酟旘低鹔Ｂ횫丿弹漺輚缞輟鼠⇿䦯⏟Ⓩ◟⛯⣿ᤏﾏ齊輿齀켝ｋཌྷ⽏僿儿剏卟呯啿⦏ふ�⎪䀼⽲骐禐豿躑�ゑ흑ڌ萱⵰巿挰�㗸蔘颓隑莐｠ꀀ႙Ƴ퐃轇齈㽟埿孯屟嵯广徏悟憯콢�潖佰轘齙
⽵燿犯玿瓏痟盯磿礏伟⽺㽻ⲅ酾戼ᮊ葉ꁓ魲䋑౭⽽ᾁ蟿鳛腰財苺滨苷莯쾄�ﾇྉᾊ⾋㾌跿靏邏縏缿ꁏ釟鉯ｿ输龔꾕뾖쾗�ﾚ鳷鴏鸟䜣舱瀆惟優ퟅ䧐샟ࡐֱ뭀Û둠퐔㓀炬秾ij矞༅듟႞턵너㏨㜰Ӡⱄ㗠듐％獦〆䀸䀇焈プ鄊ꄁ淲酪橢옭쁫뗿�⩱꽐�フ⼉뼀䄁ั쇞︩ⱨ￠ခ煦Ὥ⽮⾬딻ࡷ�꓀桐惜ㄽ쎶槟⾰⺐ㇰﾐ⾏⾢侁뾩쾪�ﾭ꿯뀏넟눯夿ƽ怯턵䉿��ऀॱ检敱���ϑ玀畧瀉륝䒁⃠ጊ섀퍐湀돛�嫃憺愪홍ર戃䕊⃀
㜲⁼︲栱º⫰�㍰훡뿳�倂倇뇛杁㍁䄀ံⴠဉ醼怆쀀䝟㔁㷠摱爽ｳ龢꾣魁쀳눮菈毟㷠㍓⺱沲佱☵翂쌟캏㯿펵棐壠ⵘ�㬢닞៧瘶⌉탟值ӟڀ뛪�䘀㏟�됀�⨑䍒怯Ǚ㤱�렀拰考耆梟䙀�椀⁄栵易邤㘹⃗졨釳㋾⃗휾ꥪ唯充ᇈ뗿䔐⺠훴S۱뚀ƀﻱͭ㿰椠䕓변ϰࣰﾄ怯怆懇⇹꿧뿨쿩㭿�㙳㲴㝐ㅡ痄⯿삒⭃䔡㹂棃㍑怸㡆㌃柁�῭郘Ⴗ틸鄲⽃櫳ퟖ掠š晐ﾡ폑ｐ필恇湇㿊俋忌濍翎쿿킏톟튯펿퓏⧟⮃�뽵欠ඁ⪠
晐う釖⳧⯠没扱楡�흣釞猭쁅읳㘐둑뀾悻녫�栀㇉ￆꈃ䏀쀳瀇臇ꔄ假န䛿Ӱ㲴⮡⩱㝡뷰歑��唯唭䓆勆㙩ऀＣ濁ᘫꁅ铿씱鿻꿼뼏㯿⮵䀹�⺐랢Ｅ鄚葂鄤∘嗆ᇟ扬�䕣န醴ᓈ⼊㼋伌ၿᆏኟᎯᒿ翏纝áț㈣釘焟ჀﭵヸⒼ㹭歀𢡄ῠὲ漡營拡鱨��疡䔿�⍄ᨲ쟰攱뵧假汧ŀὑ㡰畐⇹㫾輮鼯꼰뼱켲�㖿㟿㠏㤟鴯㖑꿡꒿傿兿劏原咯喿ￏ�ｘཚὛ⽜㽝佞忿恟慯承掏撟斯暿ￏ�ｩཫὬ⽭㽮ߤ䣶⁂⭦ޢάｰ瀉倈ꆶ녆ꌫ吢炿ሗॿ
⁰ࠀ䲰˕矐뷿⒆⎄ᰱ홐⥔祝�ꀀɤᣱ畃猢䄥䌘擼땯䘐ᣀ뵁�ࠢ뺠॒�渱㽃䓿䕏䙟䝯䡿䦏䪟䮯콌�ｏ꽰�羉辊诿貟趯躿迏郟釯鏿／ᾔ⾕㾖侗徘澙羚辛鳿鶟麯龿ꃏꇟꋯ꓿／ᾥ⾦㾧ﹱ肶ㆆ䗥焇蟿ࠠᲡ虐똰�鴀Ⴧ⬧ऑ蕲沠�Ｓ䂿㇘肶ꃸ僿脤⃗膼뵲뾑ῃӠힲ３刞ሠ샗Ⴏ턪炿惚⯿뀑瞈痓오硣簂諸旙ꄿꀞ┧․甒ﮤ⭶퉷■⚿꣏얏샗䋀᭭䊠គａ逘急₪耉潼罽轾齿胿膯芿菏蓟藯蟿蠏？⾉�ྨ濌翍迎鿏꿐퇿튿폏퓟헯��Ｏ㿚俛
応濝翞迟鿠꿡崯况╁곱捰燱䅺젷溠 ᕶ䈤拺ွᩭ널㷱Ȑ况내ꄖꃉ冭धｔＰ�킯ჭ愞急ⅳ뿐｟激翁迂鿃꿄뿅쿆�죿짯ᗿở猱ᯇꯉ痱䅰댳◐沐烾䀇Ŷ篿瘡븡᮸⎧ꮩ៱뉐ﾢ倬錽䈤ၳ샾퍴⃯㳭掁膰鄪╳᪐ᙁ隣儥〳ꃺ䡷炬瀚凯᧫듓䊡´뷱ﾁ네䈥ꌆ퀠急剴턂녿ँ狶䋡᥀⮰━䙠냳᠐搐륡뫟⡟뷥肰ὲ결녴湠倜盿댡⎰뎁ۣỹ꼀㷕Ѝ빮硰뒒︀㺠ﾡ輅抲쁵ㆳ怤뇱내珿瓇痟닥瘲窴砐祿뾏険퀆圤⇱坻冸ီ｟漑缒濵翶迷鿸꿹뿺ﯿ
ﳏﻯÿď甘｠脼´漅瀆￬᮫ꌆ抐걪а⽰瑠燯߽砰牷Ꮁ놮莶ᇴ䁸㻿눂᪰箓꿣뼳㴀ｑွ녵 䌠내뷿㒐ㆠА끰А둰뼡끁샳⍀䂶땩肯ᱲ漀퀘켤�⟿⧿⨏⬟Ⱟⴿ⹏⽟�縰뉗㨰ˡ睉肽ᅼㇿ괐猱똙긺뾣죳ʲ❷鉴䤂䅷섉劲釴ၺ넭稐亀뽣刚®〇ꆽⅶ啅Ḳṃ각ࡰ녠匢牵曾²´ᇴႾᄂď煷瓿伃噕˲㉰磠녁唢￪㼢伣齄ֽ㬾뼤ཀὁ䋿䌯䐿䕏䙟䝯䡿䦏ﾟ꽊䤂툈샯〺ジ넘阛닟늑ॢ洴戤ガ䎸귻筡㎁섗灺䊾愸焆柶こ瀆ᝮд猐瑐뺑笮㒁ɐ둌܀狠
͗乤䌦됌睐䅖灺逊ꭡ۰筰窂昒ȯ妐璤궟䏀歲俯畆㕑Ȱ䥠ꎸƴꈆ嫿寏擟Ꮯ犇焰꾁祥ﾳ悭삭늮⃯䁓헯䂸㋿ૠ돲监煡㱡㲣ᒲ´呱뜁罤皶￤螂舊ㇲ툈Ƹ쀍膁矿ࢧ눰ۡȱ뎐七꽲ﾀ戌艮臲漲䈠㊲ꔌ㳷牗穰⁜ꊬ璯넼篿簿絏뵟舅닄缀至Ｘ↳啵㢁憭ꌆ㔷隈ꄌ㗯넰껱↳倱‛㎯뷭媡〈싯襂稢㢁媄偺聓凬湔Ｇ늮뭮ʵ鈁荰㌗醸ｰ狿弇恏慟扯捿撏斟羯뽦콧�縰틮慴䀔邬걵䦐뇳煔牕㷿뺣㫠ର繑㇕翱牁ထ田祐럀鿁ㄷ℈왶사祷理坿瑵霩觑
ؔ楑睐莁໖呡궣ṡ烂�草ὡ㶡禣ź⊲귿တ踰ḣ輠透�羨Ƃ㊎汭검ﾰ偲ᄂ쑌邭ʁ冷狿Ꙁ浠鍂舤ࠓ狱︰佬값㊱矠뵡ᯤ侥Ｐ₥膈冗ꁗᇉ邭ࣿ烤ᐢ㩀ἰ爰ẓ憦怈䂥ᴨᲲᴀ靱く郴ᙲ秠䰩ﾵ勂뎁䀾厡덹䕖鄚ಣ狐 剏捎င쁌퀾샮Ĺ귴辿鿀巿킹ᚦ㦠Ӱ靰蹂亀ｰ葲瀁֚ꃱ倆킬ㅎỿ쎰ᐑ㨠잠藜㦂ﻷ䱴㯀ṳᾰ烐韁睂｠鑿Ρㆽ㨾ꀖ舼ჳۿ呰污�훺淄胕ᴴ｠뾹䅕灯ꅎ쀖�ꏿꓯ꜏ꠟ꤯ꭏ｟澬羭辮銯儅祑䈎듛챇旑℄텐㉣濠
ｰᎃ䏜륑萗쓴쁌瀌ở炰倢蘀乡坲ኄ니稁ὁ⇁벆ⁱ밠ﾓꆛ셯⓷舗㿹䏺倕鿟ʀ킠剗䄇௯ᚄ뎠໐圢扔悳쁺ꃿ튳펯嶟�執ﾠ醼慴膀ꉙ聬胤ㅴ裿ᢡ멁琲穣싲ῧ㿩俪快濬续㦬ଶ㫐瘰크 䅄㑂䅆㡄ⴀ䐲㝄㐭䀰䉂䄭䈱࠴㉅ᑁ䛀䘹ﱄ㉆�༏漑΅㼖䯣ᡅ㆛㠴퀋ꀴ놉㎽礀Pယ邈炔�2ㄺ⸲瀰㭴ḳ㮃㨔茦韰㭐ﭔ瀹셰텎퇠源룀⁀瘬잱᪀曌꼖�㎿㒏㖟᳥㖬⿾숝�᠍朣�ＧႿᜏኯ估᧱咿舳⋞Ɖ䂉ꂶယ㔱찠�녀璑ᨰ【‵ᔞ㖭㩄
킆ჟ㔻ⵄꆵ㨂鎽⌠㍄㑄䑰⁅ἱᩂⷌ摁ᤰ㳐⏱✰暰⑳쿠漣缱踲肎祤Ｐ뼽᧿ｄᩐ㳟ɿᰇ㎯녠昒乤ᩰ㔐㘸䛗㨓㐾뀹ꀋ感樷㔶㤺䜷⃑潉켚ὃ⽄᧿ᴅᦑ䒲᷏ế῏Ａ༣踥뗠獠ϐယ'灴㩳⼯矚灙耮⸁녮+幍ⶀ倻㽬ꂎꙭş쬀浑娽⚓䁓♟嫀穀缐㴀Ṯ孫濷�㯰材㵮嫿嵗퀸ꃁ寑쎔㕄ᤠ昰텲忐⋐㍟뢐歀啯犽쥐㽠暲拉肊{奈䕐䱒义䯼堠姯寿導嵎暏菸罟艠屜絮噽ݱ惉’捜ㅦ�僎뽖彐救剸큾ニ鋿쌷�ｬᑘၔ뤿㕂㙤��愱㈑茹휶⸺〳뜲⍰‵刓硟瘰彡㩩
由㞠턶ヌ�捧摱揱둤�琐⿾䃅聥Ʒꂀ灔⁹抽祿旣ꃐݠ㢁ﾀ歰ⷶテ漭랱简렐�ၔ担蘭篐数샲ⷴ㥶枰酕䇊ᅡنﳓ镀懠來槠x럐扑㖁侑⫏⯏苟澃鸯ꃹ턋Ⓘ⣿꾀뾁྄⾌Ｌ༮Ἧ⼰㿯䂿裍倀羒蒓ᢏ炻醟䔏㒝㌷굆㏺뀋䜮䣟勧䦡䪿ￏ徘殑轍齎ꄚ噑篳甐ㄕ鬳胒偯凟到原䆤ƺՕ䂸瞻嗰㭣ゲ뀷䜣⪐蠴䔀뵕氷嚩﹩쭲印 塜搿斟ﾯ潛罜彨齞㽪뽠콡�揿뇯뉿枏栟椯뜿殏ཟ潬꾦릧ڬ㔴䔳䇾�쓄鮼⾊㾋辍࿌췿蔟蛯裿褏쨟쬟촯ｿ鿕澎羏辐龑澕뾓쾔
��䄌��盯퇀�ﾀ㼿㿢䯣舳翚㿥姣᨟ᬯ᰿罏�뽑復�ｕ哬彆↬傛䆰僯耆ؠ牠ۯ箱䢀ﻠ甀逳焇濽撡怅䃯낼ꀀ⋺퀀珚僄ｴ۠瞒ꂪ職Ƿ㔐뷠浀ㅿ퀀糟ޒ݄Ᏸ＠我뀆倈ࢭ䌀能뀆ͯ䌀ꀈꭑ٠筑쓰`뫀捐ࢱ箁₰〻祯ןא䝠砰٠ð聯ꃿ⛂쓷ꁿ볠꧑茳逸⌀ᗻ脂탭ʳ냹畀ﹰ낑罰㙡ﷰ�み5惯뀀䝲춀뀂ɸ뷁‐筕㢰ﵠ矹ﱌﴐ똀ﵣ㘐ﱐ御胷⇺炰ーI秐듟繠࣐籰鷠瞠悫ꂝჿැﲻ㖑ｐ㬑｡ꇼℊ턋愈䂰ᓻŽꓻၧʀ㖒挀䁰ﯿ
ࢴୣӀԯؿݏ�쉿7턏ⅸ䁽ﵤ섀绒ᙡ`ᆰŁ㏣°瀁棾䅰㋿愻拽↝ー뿐퇿틏폟퓯��进㿭㿪俫輧Ｊ༬ⷿꄟ霯祿摒ﮟﲯ쿽�༂ἃ쀸�ࣿ৯ఏ㔟ᢿハ唇漍缎輏鼐꼑뼒켓ᓿᗟᛯ㻺᭠ᱯᵿẏﾕ罅轆镇鲡�鼮꼯䟯ⵯ맾漠偻㳧⚟廿㋿㎏㎃㔶？⼶㼷伸弹漺缻輼鼽㻿㾯䂿䇏䋟䏯䗿圏ￏ⽇㽈佉彊潋罌轍齎俿傯冿勏叟哯囿圏？�㽙佚彛潜罝ὺ齟軿郿鄏鈟怯懟拯擿／ὥ齧꽨뽩콪�淿濿瀏焟爯猿瑏畟ｯ罶轷侊꽹뽺콻�绿胿脏舟茯萿蕏號
ｯ羇辈ﾮ뾋쾌�瓮㖾勞ῤ섟⾖눟⠷⯑戦ᴩ옳緕