Laserfiche WebLink
the residents, and they propose the Church, the TaskForce, and the County get together to come to <br />some agreement. <br />Chairman Ginn felt Ms. McGrath made a very good suggestion, and she would get <br />meet with staff. <br /> <br />nd <br />Jackie James, <br />12820 82 Court, Roseland, said it was obvious that the Church has <br />outgrown their capacity. She suggested that they redesign the concept to handle their own traffic <br />or look into a new location. <br /> <br />th <br />Vernon Slavins, <br /> 7895 134 Street, appreciated his neighbors’ comments, but he <br />sees other issues. Somebody needs to do a study of this area. The US-1 corridor has been <br />redesigned and now, at taxpayers’ expense, they have police directing traffic. He felt the Church <br />needs to use the entrances that were originally designed for them. He proposed the gate be closed <br />permanently. If the gate is left open for the benefit of this Church he intends to sue the priest. <br /> <br />th <br />Mrs. Patricia Whitford <br />, 7910 134 Street, agreed with Mr. Slavins that the gate <br />should be closed permanently. She hoped they could find some amicable agreement. <br /> <br />th <br />Damien Gilliams <br />, a resident on 134 Street, said if they study the traffic on US 1 <br />the gate would be closed. You cannot reward a Church for breaking its agreement. <br /> <br />Discussion continued and Commissioner Lowther commented on Attorney <br />Vitunac’s remarks from the minutes (copy on file) in 1990 where he said he did not think the <br />County can get involved in the opening and closing of the gate on holy days. That was too much <br />involvement in the private affairs of the Church. He felt the Board’s decision should be to open it <br />or close it except on the Church’s busy days and wanted to know if that was something instituted <br />into the agreement in 1990. <br />May 18, 2004 <br />21 <br /> <br />