Laserfiche WebLink
27 <br />REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 1 1982 <br />1717 South Bend Avenue, advised that he was also hooked up to <br />the city sewer system via Turtle Creek Apartments. Mr. <br />Charles Watson, 51792 Gatehouse Drive, advised that he <br />owned property between that of Mr. Ieraci and Mr. Gensichen <br />and was also in the process of hooking up to the Turtle <br />Creek system. Mr. Leszczynski advised that any property <br />owner not hooked up to an existing system at the time of <br />construction would be required to hook up to the city system <br />and be assessed accordingly. Mr. Lawrence Schmidt, 1932 E. <br />Charles Street, advised that -he had never experienced any <br />problems with his septic system and was living on a fixed <br />income and was not happy about being assessed for the sewer. <br />He advised that all the property owners on Charles Street <br />were against the construction of the system and the assessments <br />to their properties. He asked if the Board would consider <br />excluding Charles Street from the project since it was a <br />residential area and most of the property owners on South <br />Bend Avenue, including the petitioners, owned commercial <br />businesses. Mr. Leszczynski advised that Charles Street <br />had been included in the project because it completed the <br />grid for sanitary sewers in the area since Rosemary Street <br />was already provided sewers. He advised that a remonstrance <br />process is allowed to property owners objecting to the sewer <br />project. Mr. Hill felt the Board could delete that portion <br />of Charles Street from the sewer installation and end the <br />line at Charles Street so that, in the future, it could be <br />extended if requested, if it appeared all the property owners <br />on Charles Street were against the project. He felt it was <br />important for the Board to address the commercial needs of <br />the businesses on South Bend Avenue. A representative for <br />Mr. Watson asked if Mr. Watson could hook up to the sewer <br />system for Mr. Gensichen and Mr. Ieraci which was serviced <br />via the Turtle Creek Apartments. Mr. Leszczynski stated <br />that the Board could not give Mr. Watson permission to hook <br />up to a private sewer line, and the law provides that, if a <br />person is not already hooked up to a sanitary sewer system, <br />hook-up to the city sewer system is_required if provided. <br />Mr. Watson asked if more than 50% of the property owners <br />affected were opposed to the sewer construction. In reviewing <br />the assessment roll and the properties affected,.it was <br />determined that 51`/0 of the property owners were not in <br />opposition to the sewer. <br />Upon a motion made by Mr. Hill, seconded by Mr. Kernan and <br />carried, Improvement Resolution No. 3517, 1982, was amended <br />to exclude East Charles Street from the project. Upon a <br />motion made by Mr. Leszczynski, seconded by Mr. Hill and <br />carried, Improvement Resolution No. 3517, 1982, as amended, <br />was confirmed, and the matter referred to the Engineering <br />Department for revision of the assessment roll. <br />PUBLIC HEARING - APPROVE VACATIO14 OF ALLEY <br />ADJACENT TO LOT F. JOHN E. WALZ REVISED ADDITION <br />Mr. Leszczynski advised that Mr. Harold Silberman, President <br />of Super Auto Salvage, 3300 South Main, was petitioning for <br />the vacation of the first seven foot north -south alley west <br />of and adjacent to Lot F, John E. Walz Revised Addition, <br />running south from the south line of vacated Dean Street to <br />the north line of Sherwood Street. He.stated that; as in <br />the past, in order for the Board to submit a recommendation <br />to the Common Council, a public hearing had been scheduled <br />at this time and all property owners within 200 feet of the <br />alley had.been duly notified. He further advised that <br />favorable comments in support of the vacation had been <br />received from the Engineering Department, Area Plan Commission <br />and Community Development Department. There was no one <br />present to speak against the alley vacation. Upon a motion <br />made by Mr. Leszczynski, seconded by Mr. Hill and carried, <br />the public hearing was closed and a favorable recommendation <br />for the vacation of the above alley was forwarded to the <br />Common Council, subject to the maintenance of all utility <br />easements. <br />