HomeMy WebLinkAboutRE Ordinance change lot split East Central and RidgewoodPat,
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.
Ԑ悻齰뿿벎戌苤ꅡᇿ矨ᝄ諈縕襰峑㢀햼牧低織謒⇆༜Ἕ꿽鼁꼂뼃켄輬ۿ߯ਏଟⰯ⊿ﾯ뼣�Ἧ⼰㼱�弳漴㕿㙿㞏டᏸ訁ḓ狰ዻ뵀称僂킋ⅧǃᏯ묁峁ⵐ瀿棁惈産珑寐轀ྠ뮐ﾠ擧㼪伫罁꼹鼽꼾㿿䂿䇏䋟䏯䗿䘏䜟Ｏ网轒㼻似弽ｔབ懿墯夯娿孏屟景彟퓱戼筫偢叉技ꆄ䋾�轞罢㭩쁻ţ擿偈擇攏氟杯栿楏｟潪罫潸齭걮⽰㽱�惿懯狿玟璯疿盏矟뿯ｸེύ⽼㽽䥾ᑇ⼲ê탃č䂼淀�뽰汰탅⒔뛵㒀ᕹ슱쒟䜤쀌脘䇬〳쐷䑴ᢐ钀䠕ᫀ
霁ꂻ⇮䱭扡潪ﾔ瘐热遍뀑№
傐쇿ቅᆹᏑ쎾ᘱﶮ劼ཨ얐䢠乁俯뿿꾌攞苫䗬タ킄쁨믐情隁쏓務퀩ዿᅀᒠ灀舟抯誯謿罏後澍美辏龐꾑�ｙᆝဒ脘聍燀烁ǭí앻묰旑⇦䗂䇁ყ畧í醙쑄ᦣ�덐湐튓쏧驚൱ᘑ뙍䪓胅㈠僂〲ㄲ詊聍쏿뻠뙁龓교䲁㷠冻䥁ᘑᣑ⃀Ｍꃁꆜ傢넩脘芹肾搡∠荳萟ｳꔩ瀖我鎨끍̠愖我份佁혗辢龣ྯ攞䫑墰ⵘ슻븻왒ﾷ☙돬炿 შꃩ諌럽䚠胫透怖ꂷ傔놾ඝ䌂ဒ胭쇤㠹ꂷ駽戀ყც၊ꄩꂷ큊톙⃤䨵솰⍏문胋ꫂ㘹椤蟫ဖ끊䫗페퐿㝂鳔줲ᘸ
０蜡祌ԒĨǁꀏₕ灊ᆿ떤ꀐ涁퀧⇿䯐鷐✀ሔ⠐ﾐ熧⇞俇忈濉攞櫫뻟ᤓὤᨀᐑ畴뇧⋮ꇿൣ⟑⇲䩳ᘡ춧ᮀﴐ끊ᩆᚳ䥱랠철뢿Ｐ逨鈧ₗ틝䄕�Ꙍ䂷揼䡐돑❠⪅０Ḫ侪徫澬羭辮龯꾰뇟늿돏ඝ痠ゟ免ච昀煍透儎䅎拼䩡랣빡ေ鰣ﴇ뀟ꝳᤠ鐁⥐↠魠ﵰ腍띦䪠ᒙꆢᙣｰ烬醧ꗩ*ჹꀩ듩償ഡᨑ鶠䵡☓ኌစſt咦抦ᡩꄣൿ䫆ｰ铤甔鿠꿡뿴攞ဉ瓐�룠ᄰ青훑ｵ┡ऴ뼡닼斦놾㉎࢙ꌟ聾０ꆔ⒨㿰俱忲濳翴樂ᣏ삇ﾠ澒숇ㆸĄÁ�鰰洴뷿䶀
�Ӡ̂뾱섑밂汊롤믨畁㈨ާￂꞀ敁⩧最၎ёᰀ痠⇞ጺᐟＯ㼕伖弗漘缙輚鼛꼜ᶧⲿ폏㊺퐶㖜Ｒ쇿슿㛏㜿㡏㥟㩯㭿ﾏ鼼꼽뼾켿�ｂང䗿䘟䜯䠿䥏䩟䭯䱿ﾏ齍꽎뽏콐�ｓཕ೭䠐膽䀦ས첑ｱ烮僭놖턪㌐肟ﯿѰグ첀ﻐ앷�আܔÁ뗠෴믡뇟ꃥﳱ寓玂农ﳹ擓镯⨠ﳠ엑뜰ﷂꃭ噮��랐췀ﾐ㇛�⼨㼩伪弫漬缭⾏ゟㆯ㊿㏏㓟燯Ｏ꽖뽗潴罵轶齷꽸뽹竿篏糟緯翿耏脟舯＿侃径澅羆辇龈꾉뾊诿賏跟軯郿鄏鈟錯＿͙Ⴀ䅯燬ၰ肼콯A濠̀爀ꂷ
₧ꄏ狮끮歬펹傟톷ꃿ�ॐ앐ұ鴂ﾡ펟億⊹肽닩뎶ӿ랢驠འ孡鲐འ鮡㍞葛玦扞㉥拟ֹ섣Ͻ✰됉ꈄꓭ譜㉞⟾ꃝ伊弋�甍悷䅟߽液ꃝꈦ퇻闿斀晿枏梟榯檿ￏ�ｭὰᾰ㽲佳뛿閟阏뤟뫟믯뷿븏？⾿㿀俁忂濃翄迅鿆쟿좯즿쫏쯟쳯컿켏？⿐㿑俒忓濔翕迖鿗雝䅜膜섅삗ﱰ╺뉗溠送ħ畜툈拺〡鱭鵠⅁孱�傜뀲뒀飰➡哮ヤ鯰�ʠৱ韰獀怆ꮯ겿귏껟꿯뇿눏？⾳㾴侵�醘㙚夀䆗寝炐匥 ｀慜腡腜ࢪ㜀㤈䆗鷿ჲ⇠ࢳ姒๐宴�냜
ꄠ魣࿑猡 퇾ﯳ鲁㎁崰鞨휀揾齂癐臜ꣿ鱁׃≠ऀ嫰ﾲ农ᛷ䅙怦䃾鄏䛦悛$慤⾥㾦ൻ魵狐䀄쒗䆝ｮ႙腜ᄈ㎟᧴傝▛⋻拓渤醩Û傟レ⋿⏁鶯岲鸠ࢁ�ａ傜❚㽛䕜芝ᑝ灠�忿惯巰⒧慡抿描ꌠ⺡翽迾鿿￢ﾏ鿭愤⁜퇳傟迲郳ຟ�随戠靪�恜〟ﱴ硐퉝掜骿ꄁꖡ豈椡䃟߿撳髳ꪃ�饑局鬑㆞ 挍傜$郶峟魠屠齠�涱僵႙��ꆃ榐쁛킚ﵲ կᓰᖟᚯឿᣏ翟：༜Ἕ⼞㼟휳肝䄪槯꡷旐颐ﾁ
ꊡ뿝쫞壡劝巯媇嵩皡懡ꊝ怡⵰悜匽爇鱐岁䖁≄ୃ蜡삗䃴犜畓晲傝鿿ꦡﰱ崡嫑㹣ｅ郯䀢ꅞ犜�༒ἓ㏿ꣿⵕᒛ⾏はㅿ㊏ﾟ꼳뼴켵�Ｘ顓槯�⥐ꎐր࣑鶶늝哶ꑛ面ꎀ颓⊱ူ㌜顓낞銩⟛枑⁂郳Ѯ尰据ᅁﰑ뚷ေ㐜◯齬爀䀢蓰戽秊䍆퓹䇆뺰靡≀྿Ⴏ曒냯䢗梔饿䌐䂙歲㘾槷䦀冟싳뽉䫿叏Ï控扠骱炵顃ﾰ႙ʚ냜あ旝那ᄉ䀢鼒模扁ⲑ⬃�䓒ﭠ撝傟䉱ꋱ皴橆每ꋷჯ쇟冣磿渑鹐麰㵓｢킚
苹ɝᇠ켡䐩戍芝璘⯅掷炠⃬荺쒚⳿焑狏珟꣯祕鵔癐ﾃ졷熞㕩졷놘쏳锦횁履Ⓛ鶐驁ฃ偑ၘ䀈髛鲃媁僵勝艂灢�ⶇ졷睓䁼ｄꝜʚ㭝加닮덡匄拿振丿便像凟勯哿缏ὕ⽖㽗佘彙叜䅨态킥ꕵ䧐䇡慃扄ⷿ⤐畱痑ﻷ魁ﶡ楐�濠�腐翑鄦䇵༆꽪齼꽽¦ﹷ䚔桥鄉�艡ﷰ燹ѩ溠稑ﭦ䎁ꚓ�뽟쭠祉ӱ�ﴱ̭灹ꪑ꛲蝐｣䀇侈徉뾡酸獝蟽浲[၁㇯됻킦㱱眔늒鯑鿐宠賂ꍸ狵臠삛㹬ꔂ껱｀ᒼ씈‾悞솁醐圩䛿자걁ꚲ�띴롯ｿ쭠态逩倌
⿉�鿯鹀⢀툊 鄊욗㸣爠聈⥹ꔻ臿쀣碂ⵃ骠炓䕃ܵꎱ醛传㵒剓惡㬰⺰�⡐봽뺿ￏꥌ㛔胟倩僱芐삇怽揿춿敿鎐腅먣ｰႦℽ퀋䇁僲ヵೆ롾ӻ⦢瑗뀻팪퀋郿涂盰㰤骗뭃ⵡƚႪ郳元[㫣哚啜盿ૄ떀䐿퀱㭱巒㷰ﾑᾜ⾝㾞侟徠澡羢ꏿꖟꚯꞿ䂱띩拻ឭ懐졥㼁揁䂮秀䂃ҩ얤﨓㮔ﾰ肂퀋俛㿊쭠ꅿ戽埾ꉺ퇹텰꼎�ჿ뫏ඡ멀铓廡ﱁ㿴瓒爧뼁켂�桷駟柀퐠ﲂ刧ꅺ䂮⇟蜰豱갱垲剃ガ燿饐훳휿䳟웥Ｗ遆Ŀ䅨ᅷ鉈[샪
熵棿贑煑㹐땀梲煃ﾂ飀㿫俬忭濮翯述鿱㦾ᤶ⦰皐䀬搂惵䅄㑂䅆䐀ⴸ䐲㝄-〴䉂䄭䈱℡㓠㉅≁䚠䑆㉆ῶ伟忴⑯☟ㅻ㠴뀙惡艻铱礀킁낍ĭ狟ㄺ⸲瀰ᙴ⬻䏳淐胇㩹ꌦ聺邐吻仲烕헯滠ⵀⳄ酪냅갨暞쀠缩뼗츇扮惡হ愛〰᧯⨯㔜선⿾㈫뤨휰뼚켛漵ᵯ◯✍成쁯鼧뵔舢艁늀✠ㇰ遂쾽泑뀺憪ၨ䈰宐蔫둂耺䴐㭐둂ԭ熁묺䐣䐳㓠䕄ㄠ눬갨넺搾ꀺ뀧熶ꀰ‵獦㊟ぐ㻟㿯蟾擀㹹ｯ⽋뼨Ἢ큀꧍擢㠵䝄荓㩼䜴ᤠⲀ䓑䏚㪥㧨㜮䅕嘠⣟傯ﾏ齑
ī輧鈨㽒⼫㼬⹏⽟は㉿㳾⃩ギ朇➰㯰環獰⼺⾴晷⻠⁷퇷頮魡瀸烥ጭ櫀汰鐿䲐彭䂛㇌㵭ͨ뼦끠〴扨
ꁰ遵㲀歮杩肘쁈湧㷾읧ꡪ凔ᆚѩ瓁遂⟍爐惕䁭弢A毞ⵣꃻ郇≍읦钒