Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />Richard Thomas, ( <br />13845 N. Indian River Drivenorth of Roseland Road)had no intent to <br />hook up even if the pipe comes in; was concerned with assessment, and did not want the expense. <br /> <br />Dan Hess, <br />13465 N. Indian River Drive (south of Roseland Road), did not agree with Mr. <br />Chastain on the assessment basis on square footage and was against the project. He commented on Mr. <br />Chastain’s failure to mention there was a cap of an acre. <br /> <br />Charles Borders <br />, 13025 N. Indian River Drive (south of Roseland Road) opposed the <br />project based on cost and especially that it was not needed. He also thought the water pipes would get <br />washed away during strong storms. <br /> <br />Dave Schwarz, <br />13455N. Indian River Drive (south of Roseland Road) opposed the <br />project. <br />MartinDowzall, <br /> 13885 N. Indian River Drive (north of Roseland Road), discussed the <br />cost of the project and was against the project. <br /> <br />Fred Mensing <br /> (does not live on Indian River Drive) wanted to make a point he thought no <br />one else had thought about. He inquired if the County had considered how deep a main is placed <br />underground and provided an example of such, using Capt’n Butcher’s Old Flood Tide Marina. He <br />believed the main should be placed on the west side instead of the east side (where the river runs) and <br />suggested County Engineers re-study the project as he felt they would have to go excessively deep to <br />place the water mains. <br /> <br />Roger Burke <br /> stressed what he thought was an important point that there is already an <br />existing 12” main that runs all the way down to Roseland Road and then up Indian River Drive. Why <br />duplicate a service on Indian River Drive that is not needed, he asked. <br /> <br />October 3, 2006 <br />38 <br /> <br />