1927 Beach Avenue ZVAR20-0010 Objection and likely other additional Zoning Violations (update)Please put in O drive and start a list of supplemental emails that need
to be sent to the CDB.
From: Bill Joy [mailto:wnjoy@mac.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 12:39 PM
To: Askew, Amanda
Cc: John McManus
Subject: UPDATE TO Objection to ZVAR20-0010 and likely other additional
Zoning Violations at 1927 Beach Ave
Angela—
As I will not be able to be at the meeting in person I will be
represented by my property manager John McManus.
There is one other point I hoped to make in person at the meeting,
which I believe had been moved online, so I will make it now—
The grade change in the 1927 Beach south side yard will cause the
drainage from Beach Ave to the east to change.
While previously water which drained to the east toward the ocean would
find its way both on their 1927 and my 1923 which both sloped away to
the east,
since they have change their grade, additional water will be diverted
onto my property, since it still has the original grade.
I object to the change in the side yard for this additional reason, the
drainage from the natural slope from the west end street side to the
east ocean side.
Thanks, Bill
Begin forwarded message:
From: "Askew, Amanda" <aaskew@coab.us <mailto:aaskew@coab.us> >
Subject: RE: Objection to ZVAR20-0010 and likely other
additional Zoning Violations at 1927 Beach Ave
Date: July 14, 2020 at 3:02:31 PM MDT
To: Bill Joy <wnjoy@mac.com <mailto:wnjoy@mac.com> >
We have received your email and it will be forwarded to the
Community Development Board (CDB). Please note you are also welcome to
attend the meeting on 7/21 at 6pm.
From: Bill Joy [mailto:wnjoy@mac.com <mailto:wnjoy@mac.com> ]
Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2020 3:05 PM
To: Askew, Amanda; Durden, Brenna; Arlington, Daniel
Cc: Hayden Joy; John McManus; Steve + Tanya Lee
Subject: Objection to ZVAR20-0010 and likely other additional
Zoning Violations at 1927 Beach Ave
Sent by email only. Please confirm receipt.
From: Bill Joy, Owner 1923 Beach Ave <wnjoy@mac.com
<mailto:wnjoy@mac.com> > +19709873030
To: Amanda Askew, Director of Planning and Community
Development, City of Atlantic Beach, +19742475841
To: Brenna Durden, City Attorney, +19043536410
To: Dan Arlington, Building Official, +1904247581
Cc: John McManus, Property Manager, 1923 Beach Ave, +19049101108
Cc: Hayden Joy, In Residence at 1923 Beach Ave, +19709489322
CC: Steve and Tanya Lee, Owners, 1927 Beach Ave
Date: July 14, 2020
Subject: Objection to ZVAR20-0010 and likely other additional
Zoning Violations at 1927 Beach Ave, to wit:
1) Raised South Side Yard and other raised grade,
latter possibly within building envelope and
2) New higher dune west of building construction
east limit and
3) Resulting aesthetic and runoff issues which,
individually and severally, should prevent issuing of a variance
I write this to protest recent changes my northern neighbor at
1927 Beach Avenue which I cannot believe are allowed by zoning and for
which variances should not be allowed as they detract from the
neighborhood as well and negatively impact the adjoining properties and
may cause severe erosion problems due to runoff because of the altered
grade.
I have been traveling since these changes were made and am still
in Colorado so John McManus, who property manages 1923 Beach Ave., is
also authorized to represent me, inform you and discuss these matters,
including participating in the scheduled hearing on July 21, 2020 at 6PM
of the Community Development Board.
I am struggling to understand why the crazy things that are
being done at 1927 Beach Ave. are necessary or desirable and cannot
imagine they would be allowed, even as a variance.
1. YARD LEVELING AT 1927 SOUTH / 1923 NORTH PROPERTY LINE
The first thing I notice is that, in the few months since I
left, the contractor for 1927 Beach leveled their lot by putting a
concrete block wall along the property line betweeen 1923 Beach and 1927
Beach and changing the south sideyard of their lot to be level to the
property line, building a wall along the property line which then
extends north across the front of the house.
I bring this up because not only because it is egregious but
also because it helps to understand the matter more immediately at hand,
the buildup of the grade east of the house on their yard.
I am not sure if you were aware of this or the extent of it, so
here are some pictures—
This first picture is taken from the oceanside looking toward
Beach Ave, with 1923 north side yard on the left and 1927 south side
yard on the right. The existing grade here was even between the two
lots. Now they have raised their side yard grade substantially. If I
assume those blocks are 8” high they have raised the grade of their yard
by approximately 8*5=40”=3’’6” (so far).
The second and third photo shows how this grade change appears
not only in the side yard but also how a perpindicular wall was built to
the north, filling and changing the grade both presumably with soil on
the western street side of this wall and also with the sand fill to the
east, ocean side.
The final photo shows both lots from Beach Ave, with 1927 on the
left and 1923 on the right. You can see that both lots are level with
the street at that location, Before the latest alterations to 1927, they
both then sloped gently to the east.
I object to the 1927 owners raising their property in this way,
changing the existing grade. It is not clear from their existing
variance application if they are seeking approval for this change in
that variance application as they describe the variance as “install
small landscape wall to support additional DEP approved dune sand fill
per the attached DEP approved permits.” This presumably refers to the
wall on the property line is a north-south extension of the east-west
wall in the third photograph above.
I object to the north-south wall at the property line and the
many runoff issues this can cause.
If this east-west wall is considered part of this ZVR20-0010 the
I specifically and separately object to that portion of the wall as it
is being used to change the grade artificially causing runoff and other
issues. I otherwise object to it as part-and-parcel of the structure
which alters the grade in their south sideyard.
I also object to them, when walking along the south side yard,
appearing not say 5-6’ tall and thus below the fence, but almost 4’
taller, i.e. 8’6"”-9’6” tall and thereby looming over the fence between
us and staring down uncomfortably on anyone in my north side yard.
I also would object to any raising of the boundary fence between
our lots which would throw my house into shadow, and feel very
uncomfortable walking in the walkway along the north side of my
property, in the north side yard between the house and the boundary
fence.
I also object broadly to the potential runoff issues from a lot
which now has no slope and is artificially at a higher grade with me and
no longer slope for runoff as mine still does and theirs previously did.
This applies to the raising of the south side yard, but also the raising
of the part of the yard within the building envelope and just west of
the east-west extension of the brick block wall, as there is new higher
ground there which will change the runoff toward my yard, and can cause
water to collect and flood over the east-west now higher grade on the
boundary between our properties, artificially and newly, because of the
grade change, dumping this water onto my property, and finally to the
raising of the dune east of the new house, which I address further
below.
I object to any past or present variance for all of this grade
change both a) in the sideyard and b) within (or any portion or if
totallly outside) the building envelope in front of the house, which is
in the not enclosed as indoor space, and which is west of the
north-south portion of the wall.
I specifically refer, in this objection to Sec 24-66 of the CODE
OF ORDINANCES of the City of Atlantic Beach which reads, in part—
Except as required to meet coastal construction codes as
set forth within a valid permit from the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection or as required to meet applicable flood zone or
stormwater regulations as set forth herein, the elevation or topography
of a development or redevelopment site shall not be altered.
As I do not believe these changes are required “to meet coastal
construction codes” nor are they required “to meet applicable flood zone
or stormwater regulations”, this topographic and elevation change should
not be allowed. I note that the “pre-construction topographic survey”
required by this paragraph would show that the topography/grade has been
altered.
I note that 24-68 Land clearing and alteration of site grade or
topography specifically also says that grade changes are not allowed for
the same reasons as in 24-66, and object that the requirements of 24-68
have not been met.
I note that 24-82(k) General restrictions upon land, buildings
and structures (k) Flood protection reads in part, “Flood protection
provisions shall be approved by the designated administrative official
to ensure that grade changes will not alter the natural drainage or
adversely affect other areas downstream through added runoff or adverse
impacts to water quality.” As such approval would be needed for this
grade change I object if such approval is not in hand. I further object
to this change based simply on a variance, as such specific approval,
beyond the variance, would be needed, and I see no basis for such an
approval.
The above objections are without limitation, as there may be
other code or other type of variations which I am not yet aware.
I specifically note that that Section 110 of the 2017 Florida
Building Code, 6th Edition, reads in part that "Approval as a result of
an inspection shall not be construed to be an approval of a violation of
the provisions of this code or of other ordinances of the jurisdiction.
Inspections presuming to give authority to violate or cancel the
provisions of this code or of other ordinances of the jurisdiction shall
not be valid.” The city, in all its broad powers, is therefore not
estopped from enforcing these codes, despite any previous inspections,
which do not provide approval of a violation.
I would like to understand any additional process or separate
complaint which might be needed to have the above, specifically issues
east of the block wall which runs north-south in front of the house,
fully addressed.
If this format suits, please consider this email a formal
complaint. If I need additional paperwork to form such a complaint,
please let me know.
2. BIG PILEUP OF FILL EAST OF THE HOUSE
I further object to the alterations made to the land oceanside
east of their house, both aesthetically and for the runoff issues which
would result.
Here is a picture of the sand pile newly in front of their house
looking from my front yard. The yard of my house and the neighbor to
their north, Steve and Tanya Lee, were all level before this sand pile
was added.
It is my understanding that the Toveys are building a wall to
retain this sand pile, part of which exists set back from out property
lines to north (Steve) and likely will be built also to the south (my
side) of their property. In a large storm the grade alteration here will
alter the runoff patterns. With Steve’s and my properties now being
artificially below Tovey’s this can cause substantial erosion of our
properties. I believe Steve+Tanya have separately provided video
documentation of such erosive runoffs.
I object to any variance for this sand fill because of the
runoff issues it can cause with substantial incremental erosion of our
adjoining properties as it dumps additional water toward us, especially
in a large storm.
As above, I specifically refer to Sec 24-66 of the CODE OF
ORDINANCES of the City of Atlantic Beach which reads, in part—
Except as required to meet coastal construction codes as
set forth within a valid permit from the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection or as required to meet applicable flood zone or
stormwater regulations as set forth herein, the elevation or topography
of a development or redevelopment site shall not be altered.
As I do not believe these changes are required “to meet coastal
construction cpdes” nor are they required “to meet applicable flood zone
or stormwater regulations”, this topographic and elevation change should
not be allowed. I note that the “pre-construction topographic survey”
required by this paragraph would show that the topography/grade has been
altered.
As above I again note that 24-68 Land clearing and alteration of
site grade or topography specifically also says that grade changes are
not allowed for the same reasons as in 24-66, and object that the
requirements of 24-68 have not been met.
As above I again note that 24-82(k) General restrictions upon
land, buildings and structures (k) Flood protection reads in part,
“Flood protection provisions shall be approved by the designated
administrative official to ensure that grade changes will not alter the
natural drainage or adversely affect other areas downstream through
added runoff or adverse impacts to water quality.” As such approval
would be needed for this grade change I object if such approval is not
in hand. I further object to this change based simply on a variance, as
such specific approval, beyond the variance, would still be needed.
The above objections are without limitation, as there may be
other code or other type of variations which I am not yet aware.
As above, I also specifically note that that Section 110 of the
2017 Florida Building Code, 6th Edition, reads in part that "Approval as
a result of an inspection shall not be construed to be an approval of a
violation of the provisions of this code or of other ordinances of the
jurisdiction. Inspections presuming to give authority to violate or
cancel the provisions of this code or of other ordinances of the
jurisdiction shall not be valid.” The city is therefore not estopped
from enforcing these codes, despite any previous inspections.
I also believe that this “tongue” of dune, with retaining walls
north and south is an aesthetic eyesore, not only from our properties
but from the beach and out of character with Atlantic Beach and thus
should separately not be allowed for that reason. I object to this for
the negative impact it has on our neighborhood and because it is out
character with Atlantic Beach.
Here is another photograph showing the extent of this change and
to indicate why the runoff issues which may result because of the
substantial grade change could be substantial especially in a large
storm—this photo take from my property shows how I am now artificially a
drainage for the grade-altered 1927 Beach back yard “sand pile”.
SUMMARY
For the aforementioned reasons and because of the many issues
and objections noted, individually and severally, I request that
variances for these modifications not be approved
and that the violating structures be promptly removed, and that
no future works be undertaken without proper permits or in violation of
any applicable code or regulation.
Sincerely, Bill Joy
尫됸躵쨸̺枾짹�ﲸ쏫闍ꊥﰽ諮⎰昻⌶豪殞臕튰阣䷮�㰓ﲀ禸;ꎅ绋�赺꛲蝺粈捍�罅ꢪ殖摤啩୲輁ْ镾뗆竬얭鶝⊴亝쥱腘쥳Ǻ婕㑫ﶓ睱썮ﴙ덨趹龵뾐◺➹ܮ㯍捠俰鳖ࡡ䒫꧍禷㡁褥旅㗺ﷵࢢ뺝g맰因쑵秈顯둺ﺄ웧ᔏ�川ᙩ궀冹⨑尾쇈䰿ꯗ삀䶼ᑕ嫴첳揇ᙖ㲗䖱蒧♄餡䎝踓擤ᷖइ鼃ી盚⢎擂ꀀ封㢖銋᩿軽⍉쫱熶�媓嫫鎧ᡬ趗显䣇ﳗ덩驫躳結橎겍♉ꪩ灉掾ꁽ醌櫓︨暕衻ﮡ펩ר㙵맯䪚ᣛ랗虺ꢣ�둝䑻ᒎ쁭ꄄ禭喴⽔
͕공㔙딏�뇂Ử籺駾㨌㗾㻜澁昢杦페麸ᎇṽᶟ쒬饜�ꍬ︃끹痍伃墆躕ᷦ⩿빼뀟됱݊ꗎꘘ㩩궤宥醷䶾ᾀ炘婿�ᓻ㓮枸丨⯵갘ᶛᑖ턜㝦鰍䎇ᗵ俑檬鴉놖㼮寮㺮㸭慈�덽✱囥둡춏巕項㗩┷應ꫨﱀ�ꢉ꿛梟稛㊀뽶ꄿ㿍ᇾ�왛意ꛉ鐶據�욽剣連珥羀ﰃ긕로춀웭騫⇵냻狉戾ÿﵑ瑩臠璟ᖇ經楫ٱ磛㫶탡⎰밌뾎궑褹颱퍈굑巤䑄尾ꀬﮨ뾞Ᏸ基ᕟ뿘趵�䀲༝읱ڥ㉝굢亐㳆洣橙麜鑦�õ䵖柖燛⏲
蜛㽵≝杸燄◍墒㱝㚒茞南黀鐪楤౷㰏⬦喞痩ﮒ壊鵺︢飣ࢊ顛檓缚㚔迭깈ྞ纇訶♭艶꣣숿ÿ䍏⽂㺅餼㪉詬칽蘫뱸�﵅뭊࿚柮揚៩都飛빝ᵵ봕끫㗑멤Ȯ甈긣菡땞쀏῏⇟ꮀ簌鳄岃ﳟ뼳췅ﴢᶖ䬰乪띕ﴞᖏ㐫⿂뒊뱮闎ﻚ眶鞚ᯃ黗䳁哺狛挸㎂㪂⟥瓯竸籈ꙭ楝籚쟱�벡壳釋쾆穎�㯰鏇콩괞醧⸉壒⟭㰃d煮杖翁㪆ﲎ熂秶㧖椦쁦똬击庀紷⏥텪喝��펵巤뼬ਓꚱ힠눳骾势𥉉陹睷┖忥數揌⎯炵列⾤�
ꗙ䒒猅쎀묫㈝㽀箍ⴡ᷾몵붽펿ᐘ甞�눒뤪盎슾踳쭫퐤赴쐿똱捣킹䶅釙賳縌蔕搜왪ཎ욙틷껚떆现겦�䟟쓔媗锦鬾쒦읋☞綄勦㢹竮嵱鳖㖺뒕ඖ뜱年끂ꭞ㺵繏轻蘇ᦼ�晿杍�䳛瑓둒ڲホꇬ큆뤏漕竃ꛥ直ꇞ춯餇늨컊禡놋럫毙㩕絞꽿Ӹ琺钢퍔嵾簽ÿ컡㾚圚붻卷쫳賹㣛儾鳙�㻀겹㾭釀빫퐛䔼⑯婰懸外铭陯楋Ꚙ蟨ꝲ䂦뫦彭竄ꤶ쒨嫷顏ⶖ렠썔碬삍쏩浠调룦ꬻ⛽勳就�掛扺⫝㉥ﵡ㤀퓠㕊ᔥ⯋渷힟婃ꝳ㸙嵨뛾卧ᖾ
㑬㸍㗽⃙死諬䓨⪉睰䀎焝䬦ⵈ듷괡Ꙑ㍶쌡켰㠸곈Ⴏㅩ獍ﴍ銄⢉닊뒁稒켓딞寓秉ꪥ䑙혰塻�짜䬦ᗵ᪭혎鲔뮞햜⟫栮䕅ᱹ袧﹦∄甫릷ሗ瞶ᄮ鵊酧ᅚ䝪流옶ﰉ릥䳤ᘻ᳇֒正壚뾺못ⴷ쬅օ╣酱姼䟬噁⮼ꕩϪ뭏Ᏹ쀭榴䈭匹ᰥ䖀�嫂돝펳䀼鮚�锿쩶왘믍㢕㼸�瞓岞鞶阇�ノ谉滵ⓧ�⸞柍拔ꑙ⒏룻폫럒뮎阣뙱鶩϶ݮ䡏뮂쀃Ŝ쉒꺶銁셠䖆爢靐儜⭳욠씹�齢㿥献槍釹ᅤ蛕r棇睂碞䳩衆ᬥ鵻ポ耱혳몢╰Ḁ
兇哺曞北Ἲ襪ㄲ经橽֮頳沦㦨㗷阘䌩౮뤛꯵㬄晭堻õ噱㗞ᰎ䬂㹣ꢂ̊茌ѷ辰뇔떃ꉛ䧱䘩ܧЇﯤ剺ߔﯠ͐㇜偀伐栜ۣɀ鲃즃꯴孾怨졁᳤壓롼粐麠깪嘦䚖⡖侽素ꬪ䤲↓댋ຜ煮읕션2͗笄㧕밼삕Ḁᵈ춈攗旊̏踇愾豏쐫⢭退콳홃ᦐ㕖㹦硦輀쮫ᑯ鳭燲㇅ࠑ쮛ೳꔂㅏ玗ꀀ仒૯ຐ揌滔淥틍ﲮᵵ꜏홏ⶀಆ莛㳵뵧奎撐况妃좶吝�鱱픎晫䋀丿ࢡ퓿룼㉟럭ି穙裗툢뉁ʲ썋㻵鷵씓莥墧ゎ摏촕뫨�荎佻㭱曉Խ睾䤚��ǽ✷Ꮛ䕃䭵哥멆림㍮鿔ר
䅽忡ഇ伲緬ꌨ泪꾡夯╷㞪䅄�䟸ৼ삸砰셧ᕮ튰떕ሏ⛞ꝟ榕Ά础ꬃᶷ⌁瓗୯뫫ꉵ�泛陌癦ꐅ쾝㽶懽糅敎箙桇㪽凉盺絝됏惀뜴뿼팤⾼쮖汩쭛鈄덺俌褥䷪ᵨ촮ꐑ㘑쇈癦吡줁鸤嚀뾭粇⁉켊縒휤紛ꡯ婫쫱ދ㜫ゖ㞗뜱ሱ읺Ἑ㸶糳肧論庈륭흋꩜ᣉ孶䷵㽆伐䜛汭�퀾ﯣ㿌迕叡즓�璭췇涒ꂧ䝒귲딶ױᷛ㪑윃ꬊ헺佝핎봴洶剋揜ᢋ｝㌀Ⴛ᪩膌�ẅ뫦㛾ο꠫ꠢﺂ衋欁닫杶ℌ纍틼䔏ꏨ鯸ꘃ∍瓑㩭㜝剏슰댜ᰳ놳쳮塲㗷䡗킺벸榵䮵⓲粹諼쉀
蓄ÿข꤇ị깉溭�襣푱殶먺譠䳻ዞര팴䠤玃ḳᰀ綒窇ꃶ췚盌棘㽾繰포ㄐ臨ቺ魫껖뚿錮飙醙މಬ䡈Ｓ䴀ᶘห뛢뇎⮤ꀈ㕯ጢ럓枥틈翳ﲗ쬟헔吟庵昀疲燍艣⌝�蚚媨�秾݆曯朗屽楐��곭掙孀魴蹗뷧�뤝횸澚㩅ᆀۚ�蝦㳤鑷ᗻꔇѥ�聾侚閗杷海業楥괕斤蕢桄璠ᡕ㐕ͱ栧컽暮땈᭩뿦彔✫艚퀢뮢뫄飃‷훹ଐ싶̌싪䊩狯�홆緦쓯쨒崂隐놡곅衤Ὲÿ⇰審뎙뉘뷯Ϗ犜돈㹍舕褅怙ਉ㼆咕嚗喯ﰹ喅麹떈堮
닙ꖮ圤婱폨ퟲ莲ܣⷆ梨᳤ﳺ羪껞﮻䍃禁酔皇읽걫┾銽䗚死䬄来酪ÿ䣖絆偉镾퉙颭묫絈➭坊⦷⪜盌귫죛㿛ήļ�벴넮읟걷㝊�枛誠�㶦எ㕾ⷂ駽麲䇬銵攷秜Ĭ俇덍瓒㮛�䈔ꨇ龁룖㞫쬕ꩣ鮝撺集땳뢵ᔲਠᏹ㿅ﰌ꩑ࡋᖒ暴伲蓊翈꽅ᾴ큖᭢硿퇧㵓鰫풿⼭洵�谆덆駋㨆鴀멆㦰岅ﴭ瞜燮狣磺微轝垟䛡놸釮䅣菫᭕藡ÿ咘魎薽᭽켼셰礔�檚흩∍�臂秖⿾徺촣㵜儾ﻓ樇㶳폥왝뤣閹埆溜濇梥ÿ郂ᶜ�㼊䃝絍ꐽɍ⋘ᩏ螫㾗驖代뒄₱⯳禚
㗶쿞㫰遡章ﷅ쯧虸㗲땉놴锑ഀྮ绐髌ｱ輀䚝콷ᖸⷨꎯ萍䯡ʠ뢫뭦覶ᰒⱁ볌茞렦杪轙鹉㊄뭌謕槶ꓰ᥄陦癜踯䪟诀拶퓰佳묝蠔쑊㤫䏹�혇誾ÿ캄냈瓲俲䷻ᙚ髚볟㻷�鵾峳㤯㫌柕牬ཬ䡊쓹챾ྞ㸌�퓱，娀듚鿽㑡䄒ᥪ揆霻㲨庑⻅䲾ӏꔖₖ儁�䧝쁘ᰃ峏珖母ﵕ详섭ﰧ㴜쇇ѿ汋㷑䊪捻훹띭࿃㚇統頨廫㦋堢쳭躀羬폄酆Ὦ�옩ᱸ綞◫됚뮪魺⹋ꟃ퉸Ế㋸砻㓝鳸䆕謆ß♸˱ꝏΠ䗑�럩霶�楡患鐏ߝ⮮佪잴臌켣雰긙謷龮
冻鮿ꌺꂄ뷗븄ﺭ㘦혂䋈那甶홡Ⓔ뛰澁誇惜�ꬹ슑㥔ꟴ➈▖暑怸䤎ᗇꮔ罖鼔淞㐚쌗㓓灋蘦矅Ό㪐퀔媚歷ܨ⡬ᒭ�㏅灹纸毽힉罼巡찁鸀ࢪ쟀ꦠ⮄噎溂哤恴⚯ꦑṳ辟ᴲ綊ÿ폫蹏戠噅眽伮뇖�庈퐐랿ⶒ໊챎撚郗�黣ꚁ拄覄輦甿䡆胯먫嶞ꮊ䠾矓騼ﲘ⠵㧳ẫ痠冕炵툇꺲熼�牋䢨젪ヌ篊蝿粥踯ꚨᕍ躤ళ絰좫⼵欔뒺䮆�✥즨奟葃凧둿⸻保쒒㗱椨嵅暟폸뇶듓ꤋ뒬럒㹅ፙꢫ蘼愼덖俱蠯얗搚寪愙肽㖏调쐝ᢂ瀐ف澼퍙ꕆ빭Ԣ
惌➕�鿬跴굕春捔ނ嬻ꅟ饥ጞᬇ跑察ඟ캍塱➭⸫㮖ᶛ쑟ᒾ龻흏മ鯾쭰丮뒸ྎ닷恉㥹巫誇墵㽵㖳廬䝒ಃ퇉傇܇겹䵻ᷞ黲ꕑ݂臌㝆種鼑냆뷴啓濸�繨됢陙ờ朷ᗋᡇἏ⭣鳛퍗镞ꡛ饛譸폚Ꞵ뇗쐇⩯講버ⱳ皗嵰갴找ϒꎀ욠�澙鷶쨧ﶲ㛼飨獢⮅悖뱾�㖴฿埩殩徭挙㙂ૉꚜἿ廧葿跚肷콴㪊㌍詒䐈뀐鑟ᱮꥠ‹詳쓥ꥢ偒➧뭫帯巇ⴌ깚詓閽詳춂涮鹠퍫购ᛰ壢⊛⌤晱섓輕殭ꭺ䇝橡퓂솄球ຌ망㧵귈�࣏싙厗튴փ㎿庖쩲Ṉ﮼鹖
핈㢢ᖮ똤䞕䂖䭐㦩Ἔ竝ꤱ�맩ೝ椽榉ﺥᱻ玼緜哂�瓉ᲆ騟㧀鼇뭊浫驰橪靷㴋찝륭Ი௵ӓ퍠뗠�竅슬艅楓鉯묶캸愥峷蛅糇훻ꖍ馾칦༿ꖺ寪뚟䴹斟쌮伥逛迺㝕꘣뻴�⓼툶矨�䕚灹ᣢ喣崁≒ు룇鈤⭽펕洭쮋녬탹❹߯㋎꧃猄ѝꘚ겇癫斺⦤鴆舑贻炣抑綐䂢摽߆皵⁞՟俘龪�﵋榛⑩狇怂㍿앲 럊✹軮솕闵넊ꂄ矒㷳퉳�몵朞凢똕掋䂪䮠︴뭔咲䌷ᶻ윸섕䟜瑬⭫㦛㝌陕ሎ啩料䏇膁䶞╺㋔ꙇꩄ韶리㸌愇帟룢ꛑ㷝閭쒥୫籈낱靠
⎖ẻ庯ⷪ慄䈞ꕍ剿൫題쵹䜫艰葐畤老�㐺仺ꖢ絢ዠ溤埨볞寖괙ㆺ㴲麩踲㝷�웭ᜫ埃澷⩯Ḗ剄ኖ⫴˄諗�飝玻⍙惒쑶덐躌䍱틩℩�轡噜ု덚櫚䁢溁Ẁɛꁰ꼷땎嶬⑇숸撣尟㏗咅㟵ꓧ裖玫煡閹⠔狆⍇䍄㍴⤑ꧥÁ曾㶮ꏞ쌠笶㩲ブ앩韇
伶앛륋㟍蠞饒윥쫋髧院茤뢜ꣁ䮲윂쿥ﴽ嚪啖ᜌ㨪땾駔ᦁ垷ຓ锂밞簚捃ﰓᠣ礟錻蜟檷뺐Öࣰ諠ᵢ�駖葱지�厳ᯅጅ섕狚⩽昶咑鸁ﳇŨ㊲ӈᥗ玪鲳⑥�럣縕繨덓Ζ紛퉱ʫ寞ʫ穙撊㺳븰�瑔ꇇ戕�젛졉새㿴ꏎᑙ➨鰄螎ﲩ馹꼂세⒫햁꡶酜dž⟧䋫趸㩂�웯卺뛅隆₇膜閞逌戨挜调ÿ䀱ЉƭὩᷧ悻論ꔘ腎㽎옟禩䉡撬果㪂侑생䡠᧣把＿Ù