Laserfiche WebLink
Chairman Tippin opened the Public Hearing and asked if anyone <br />wished to be heard in this matter. <br />Mike Tirpak, 66 32nd Avenue, referred to the following letter <br />he wrote in opposition to the petition paving project: <br />Michael D. Tirpak <br />166 32nd Avenue <br />Vero Beach, FL 32968 <br />ccr <br />����:0�•`6`� <br />May 17,�9�4'��I?`ry'i;`d <br />iG'.Y2�i�ili;iSiata''.irs ,,�..�:�Lf <br />Board of County CommissionersitS <br />of Indian River County <br />1840 25th Street <br />Vero Beach, FL 32960 <br />Mr. John W. Tippin - Chairman <br />Lt:I:Yi: <br />RE: Proposed Paving & Drainage-Iaiprov_ements on First Place <br />Mr. Tippin: <br />.�.�r <br />Eme6g;. Sent.'isk <br />Lie <br />The purpose of this letter is to appeal <br />for a nullificationOP,-the-� <br />petition for the paving of First Place <br />between 27th and 32nd Avenues.����� <br />I strongly oppose the proposed paving project and understand how cow �[ v <br />practically impossible it is for minds <br />to be changed in the final hour <br />after preliminary efforts have been undertaken. In spite of that, I still <br />feel compelled to respond by detailing <br />my objections. <br />As this has taken on a legal character, presumably the petition has <br />become a legal document. I urge you not to pass this motion on such a <br />poorly prepared piece of evidence. For instance, on the cover page, <br />Section II. Boundaries, is not even filled in. That leaves the open <br />opportunity to challenge that the petition be thrown out or that the <br />boundaries were manipulated to obtain the percent of approvals necessary <br />to proceed. <br />In Section III. Improvements, no improvements are listed or proposed. <br />Surely we are not inclined to the approving of "Blank Checks". <br />Since the petition is now over three years old, some whose signatures <br />Appear have sold and no longer have a valid interest. At the <br />Informational Meeting, Michele Gentile explained that the petition is <br />updated for recent sales. As of my face to face with Mr.Davis last week, <br />he said sales -were irrelevant and they were proceeding with the three <br />year old signatures. Sounds like the County right hand doesn't agree with <br />the left hand. <br />The last page of the petition was mailed away to New Jersey for <br />signatures. The Bergers' signatures must be worth quite a bit in terms of <br />percentage since it appears they own many properties an First Place. <br />However, despite written request of the Dept. of Engineers, they failed <br />to have their signatures notarized. Your approval of this project should <br />-- not hedge on such shoddy paperwork. <br />Finally on the subject of the petition, I remember when the man came <br />around.with the clipboard soliciting signatures he only asked for road <br />paving. That fact is reinforced in writing on the petition pages which <br />were mailed away for approvals. Now that this is coming before your Board <br />MAY 241994 <br />L- <br />47 <br />BOOK 92 FAF <br />