12/3/1996 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

4. Those who oppose the change are not just Baptists. They were from several different Baptist Churches, several Church of Gods, Lutheran Church, The Church of Christ, and pastors from Gifford and across Indian River County representing MADD, and we are sure you have heard from others. Your Commission notes also indicate you had letters from the Tabernacle Baptist Church, American Family Association, Immanuel Baptist Church and the Community Baptist Church, all in opposition to any lessening of the existing regulations. You have more than likely received other letters such as -this one, also opposed to any change. We believe you have heard from only a few voices of the many opposed to change in this Ordinance. All these citizens are looking at the concerns of their churches and schools because they want Indian River County to be the kind of place where the rights of the school children and church members are protected in every possible way from the creeping influence of alcohol into these would-be safe areas. Yes, it is true you can buy closed package goods within 500 feet, but that doesn't mean all other Ordinances have to be compromised to that standard. Indian River County has a high standard of living - that's why we live herel 5. This is a very clear case of one individual making an uninformed relocation decision against the zoning code. That person's misinformed relocation should not be given priority over the rights of those obeying the law and what is best for the community. 6. The Italian restaurant can survive without alcohol - many do. The restaurant also can relocate again to a area with proper zoning for alcohol consumption if the owner feels that is a must. That is what every other restaurant until now has done. Indian River County Planning Staff's unincorporated County research indicates that 60% of the restaurants do not serve alcohol - a fact to remember. 7. Yes, alcohol is a problem in our community. Alcohol and its association and availability in and around our schools and churches is not in keeping with the long standing high standards so plainly outlined in our existing Zoning Ordinance to protect minors. 8. To deny the request that Ms. Fothergill might serve alcohol at her establishment is a simple enforcement of long established Indian River County regulations. We are sure Ms. Fothergill intends to continue run her restaurant with a good, clean, and controlled atmosphere. That is not the case with all places that serve alcoholic beverages. By extending open consumption closer to schools and churches you might as well also extend drinking hours, lower the age of drinking, take the separation to 100 feet or less and advertise alcohol consumption to school and youth group aged children. That is not rightl There is no good reason to change this regulation other than one individual business saying "I didn't know I couldn't sell alcohol here and I think I need to in order to make additional money." This is not how Indian River County operates, nor is it the way the majority of citizens would want the County Commission to vote. 9. At Visitation House we are concerned about the well being of our entire community. We see no redeeming value in shortening the Ordinance's 1000 foot separation requirements. We see no establishment in Indian River County which serves alcohol providing counseling, rehabilitation, divorce recovery, AA programs or self-help programs to the many lives affected by the devastating misuse of alcohol in our County. 10. We urge you to simply vote NO to a lessening of the existing restriction for both schools and churches. To view schools and churches as different in the protection they are entitled to is biased and wrong. A vote for no change is for the good of: the School Board, which opposes any precedent -making changes; the many churches, organizations, and citizens who are opposed to any changes of this nature; and, the children, in schools and in churches, who are most affected by the increasing exposure to alcohol and the results of the use of alcohol. We urge you not to change the existing 1000 foot separation requirement with the intent of continuing the existing Indian River County policy of creating a safe place for the minors involved in our school and church systems. Thank you for your wise and prayerful consideration of this matter. Sincerely, Jim Way (John dean Director President 54 DECEMBER 3, 1996 BOOK 99 PAG4O30