Laserfiche WebLink
131 <br />REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 16, 1981 <br />Prast Boulevard for a distance of approximately 400 feet; all <br />being in Westchester Second Addition to the City of South Bend. <br />The Clerk tendered proofs of publication of notice in the South <br />Bend Tribune and in the Tri-County News which were found to <br />be sufficient. The Assessment Roll lists $0.00 net benefits <br />and $0.00 net damages to the abutting properties No remonstrances <br />were filed and no one was present to oppose the vacation. Upon <br />a motion made by Mr. Leszczynski, seconded by Mr. Hill and <br />carried, the Assessment Roll was approved and said resolution <br />is in all things ratified and confirmed and said proceedings <br />closed. <br />FILING OF REMONSTRANCE PETITION (WABASH SANITARY SEWER PROJECT) <br />Mr. Leszczynski advised that the Board had scheduled a public <br />hearing on the proposed construction of the Wabash Sanitary <br />Sewer Project on November 9, 1981, at which time, objection <br />was raised by several property owners. He stated that the <br />Board had, at that time, and in accordance with the procedure <br />outlined in the statutes pertaining to Barrett Law petitions, <br />delayed final confirmation of the project for a period of 10 <br />days in order that those persons objecting to the project <br />(� would be given adequate time to submit a petition opposing <br />the sewer construction. He advised that a petition had been <br />received on November 12, 1981, which contained the signatures <br />of 18 out of 24 property owners against the construction. He <br />advised that a subsequent petition submitted this date contained <br />13 signatures against the project. He stated that the remonstrance <br />petition containing 13 signatures appeared to be duplicate <br />signatures of the previously submitted remonstrance; however, <br />the Engineering Department had not had the time needed to <br />review the second petition. Mr. Leszczynski explained that, <br />based on the statutes as required, if 51% of the affected <br />property owners object to any improvement construction under <br />Barrett Law, the action of the Board shall be rescinded and <br />the project not to be pursued unless the Common Council, by <br />a two-thirds vote, approved the project. Mrs. Phyllis Skwarcan, <br />2221 South Olive Street, stated that, according to Mr. <br />Leszczynski, the matter was not yet concluded. Mr. Hill stated <br />that it was the Mayor's intent to discuss the sewer construction <br />with the Council in an effort to determine if the city wanted <br />to proceed with the project. He advised that, if the Council <br />determines the project should go through and a two-thirds <br />vote is obtained in favor of the project, another public <br />hearing would be scheduled before the Council and all affected <br />property owners notified. <br />Upon a motion made by Mr. Kernan, seconded by Mr. Hill and <br />carried, the remonstrance petitions containing 18 of 24 property <br />owners, or a percentage of 75% against the project, were filed. <br />APPROVE PROJECT COMPLETION AFFIDAVITS (MAPLE LANE 41S, PHASE 'I - V) <br />Mr. Leszczynski advised that Project Completion Affidavits had <br />been submitted on behalf of the Holladay Corporation for the <br />construction of sewers, pavement and watermains in Phase I <br />through Phase V in Maple Lane Fours. Mr. Leszczynski stated <br />that a three-year Maintenance Agreement running to November <br />16, 1984, would remain in effect. It was noted that Maintenance <br />Bonds covering all the work in Phase IV and Phase V were submitted <br />for filing, and change riders to the Maintenance Bonds already <br />on file for Phase I through III were also submitted covering <br />all work. Upon a motion made by Mr. Leszczynski, seconded by <br />Mr. Hill and carried, the Project Completion Affidavits were <br />approved, and the appropriate bonds and change riders filed. <br />