My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
9/19/1973
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1970's
>
1973
>
9/19/1973
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 11:26:53 AM
Creation date
6/10/2015 2:42:36 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
09/19/1973
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
46
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
J <br />(PIAS Statement on Rezoning of South Beach) -2- <br />The most recent statement from the D.O.T. is that the second <br />bridge is now scheduled for completion in late 1976 --three years <br />from now, barring no further delays. We can see no benefits <br />for the people or the economy of this community from a pell-mell <br />rush to develop the barrier island south of Vero Beach before <br />all the necessary provisions for sustaining the projected <br />population are provided, or, at the least, are in the process <br />of being provided. This is still true today, as it was several <br />months ago, and, as a matter of cold reality, as it will be for <br />the next few years. <br />We can not help but repeat our question --"Why the big rush?" <br />If the commission members decide that they can disregard <br />the lack of a second bridge for the next three years, and the <br />inadequacy of other services and utilities for the projected <br />population, and are prepared to materially alter the future <br />character of the beach area, and, thus, are inclined to grant <br />this rezoning request, then we respectfully ask you to first <br />ascertain the major impacts of this particular project, and <br />related projects currently proposed, or projected in the future <br />for the south beach area: <br />For example: (1)What are the projected tax revenues to be <br />received by the county from these projects over the next 5 years? <br />(2) What are the projected requirements and <br />costs for the following: <br />a. Police protection. Will this require hiring of additional <br />sheriff's"deputies, vehicles, and administrative support? <br />b. Fire protection. How many additional Firemen, vehicles, <br />etc., will we have to provide? <br />c. Schools. How many children will live here? How many <br />additional teachers and classrooms will we need? Buses? <br />d. Hospitals. How many additional beds will be required? <br />How many additional ambulance trips engendered? Will this require <br />enlargement of volunteer ambulance facilities and volunteers? <br />e. Governmental services. How many additional publicy supported <br />personnel and services will be required by this population? <br />f. -Transportation. How many vehicles will be added to the <br />road system? HOW many more vehicles:crossings will be added to the' <br />present traffic on Merrill Barber bridge? When is 4-laning of <br />&-1-A scheduled in relation to completion of these projects? <br />g. Service personnel. How many new domestics and other type <br />personnel will be required. Where will their families live, and <br />what will their impact be on city -county services and transportation <br />arteries? <br />h,4 Environmental impacts. <br />(1) Sewage treatment -Will full tertiary treatment be <br />provide&? If only secondary, can 90-100` treatment be guaranteed? <br />Where will effluent be dumped? What are present city and county <br />plans c6bcerning sewage treatment for this area in the future? <br />i- (2) Rainfall runoff -Where will runoff from roads, parking <br />b— g <br />pe. <br />w <br />�c- <br />u,r <br />p�ou,I 18 1.AbL a. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.