It appears the city of Edgewater's council and mayor seem to be encouraging the rapid growth of the city and urban sprawl by allowing the Reflections and Restoration projects West of I-95. These developments alone will more than double the current population of the city even without considering any other developments which will be allowed more internal to the city. It is hard to imagine that the city fathers want to destroy the small town nature of Edgewater. Didn't you move here for its small town charm? If you wanted to live in a city like Daytona, why didn't you move there first instead of moving here to help it "grow "into a Daytona Beach?

Are there plans in the works to be able to provide the necessary services to these developments such as water and waste water treatment and recycled water? Has the cost been established for constructing the infrastructure for these services? Who will bear these costs? Will the current residents bear them or will the developers be required to pay for them in advance? If growth is supposedly good for current residents, we should not be forced to pay increased taxes in advance to support this growth. I noticed an article in last week's Dayton Beach News-Journal that the city of New Smyrna Beach is negotiating with developers to charge them in advance for providing the infrastructure for the new developments far 'out of town'. Will Edgewater do this as well?

Since the Reflections project is in the vicinity of the new Edgewater well fields, has it been determined that the runoff from herbicides, pesticides and petroleum products from cars and roads will not damage the quality of the water supply?

Looking at the trend of developments in the area, it is obvious that the developers remove all of the ground cover before starting construction. There is nothing left that will impede their earth moving vehicles. We decry the fact that the developing countries are destroying rain forests but we seem to allow the same thing to occur in our developments regardless of size. The trees and plants that convert carbon dioxide and replenish oxygen to the air are totally removed and replaced by houses and pavements. Does it have to be that way? Can't you require the developers to leave trees in areas in which they are going to build houses? I have to pay for a permit to take down an oak tree in my yard. Shouldn't developers have to do the same?

I would appreciate a reply to these questions.

Thank you in advance.