Laserfiche WebLink
1 <br />2 <br />3 <br />4 <br />5 <br />6 <br />7 <br />8 <br />9 <br />10 <br />11 <br />12 <br />13 <br />14 <br />15 <br />16 <br />17 <br />18 <br />19 <br />20 <br />21 <br />22 <br />23 <br />24 <br />25 <br />inevitable, okay, we'll take the best option. And I think <br />it's disingenuous to our community folks. <br />We've talked about this for a number of years <br />and we know the public sentiment, whether it's access to <br />hospitals, whether it's access to other community needs or <br />necessity, it's, it's all about safety and the threat and <br />danger. Counselor, you mentioned that they're already <br />compelled to do all of those safety applications. <br />ATTORNEY REINGOLD: Well, there's a certain <br />level of safety improvements that they've have done per <br />FRA. There are things that we've requested, public works <br />has requested on top of that, the concept is to then wrap <br />in those requests and have those incorporated in as part <br />of their crossing development plans. <br />COMMISSIONER FLESCHER: Well, if the safety <br />applications significant... I understand we have some turn <br />"laning" concerns and some, something they call barrier, <br />we call fence. But again, is it significant where it <br />compromised public safety if that was part of the <br />negotiation tool. <br />ATTORNEY REINGOLD: They're going to argue, <br />obviously, that they've put in what FRA, the Federal <br />Railroad Administration, has required and, therefore, <br />they're meeting all their necessary minimum safety <br />standards in the light. And I would assume I would hear <br />VERO BEACH COURT REPORTERS <br />772-231-2231 <br />21 <br />