Laserfiche WebLink
First, paving only the length of First Place from 27th <br />Avenue east to the east property line of the site <br />would create further run-off/drainage problems, <br />deteriorating First Place to the east and aggravating <br />the run-off problems to the west, over 27th Avenue. <br />Second, paving the entire length of First Place from <br />27ttf-Ave6ue to 3rd*' or 24th or beyond --viewed <br />officially as an 9nhancement.by county statutes --will <br />NOT .improve the .9tia,ility of: life in the impact area! <br />Raiher, itwill' " tnci *ease traffic, reducing safety and <br />increasing noise, unsettling what quiet and peaceful <br />qualities of t * he neighborhood that remain. <br />Moreover,"' -property owners'south of the site, along <br />First Place, do not want the cost incurred by mandated <br />paving, nor do they wish to surrender any footage to <br />widen the road bed. Such concessions involve them in <br />an active reduction of thda quality of their own <br />lifestyle --a lifestyle to which they are entitled. <br />. <br />Finally, with each granted variance, no matter how <br />seemingly harmless, the integrity of the master plan for <br />growth in Indian River County deteriorates. Such a plan, <br />no matter how well developed or how effectively written, <br />suffers assault with every change in political winds. Must <br />it also deteriorate as well with countless, well -intended, <br />but misguided acquiescences to equally well -intended but <br />poorly planned and poorly researched requests for variances <br />from its guidelines? <br />Commissioners, the points herein do not sound any <br />particular objection to Faith United Fellowship <br />congregation's building their facility for the practice of <br />their faith. The objections emanate from a deeply felt <br />concern about our local government's obligation to conduct <br />its business in response to and on behalf of the governed. <br />Established/existing property owners' rights should take <br />precedence over new orpotential property owners. <br />In this case, the governed, the existing property owners in <br />the impacted areav see their right to maintain neighborhood <br />integrity threatened by the Zoning Board's inability to see <br />that any request for a permit other than one for <br />residential use for the site in question irreparably <br />changes the nature of the surrounding area. Owners in that <br />surrounding area view the changes which can be reasonbly <br />predicted as ones repugnant to them. Therefore, the <br />request for variance should be denied. <br />Sincerely,, <br />Mr. Wd rs. Al e• ander .'K'ro hoot' <br />'JUL 1988 33 uv 1733 <br />