08/19/74 Board of Public Works Minutes

Home Browse Search

REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 19, 1974 The notice for this hearing was published August 9, 1974 and August 16, 1974. Therefore, the hearing is to be held only three days from the date of the last publication. Also, we have been informed that no notices have been mailed. Although this procedure is proper for construction of sewers (1971 I.C. 19-2-7) it is not proper for side- walk and curb projects. It is our recommendation that the Board conduct a hearing on the res- olution on August 19, 1974, as stated in the published notice, and conduct a second hearing no earlier than September 9, 1974, with notice published August 23, 1974 and August 30, 1974, and copies mailed to the property owners affected. The property affected is listed in our letter addressed to Mr. Farrand dated July 31, 1974. Very truly yours, s/ Gerald R. Phipps Upon motion made, seconded and carried, the Board moved that the public hearing on -Improvement Resolution No. 3404, 1974 be re - advertised and that notices be mailed to each property owner affected by'the proposed improvement. all LETTER REGARDING VACATION RESOLUTION NO. 3380, 1974 W The following letter was received by the Board of Public Works and publicly read: Mr. Rollin E. Farrand, Sr., P.E. Director Department of Public Works City of South Bend South Bend, Indiana 46601 Dear Mr. Farrand: We received your letter regarding the petition which was presented to the Department of Public Works by our neighbors supposedly affected by the vacation of the alley. Mr. Farrand, if proceedings are recalled correctly, there were thirty days from date of vacation for public remonstrance which, to our knowledge, did not take place. It has been roughly one year since the alley was vacated and during that time, city and other trash re- moval services have been using our drive for the benefit of the res- idents who signed the petition. It was not until several weeks ago when the fence was erected that we had any indication of neighbor problems. At the time we petitioned the city to vacate the alley, we made it very clear that a fence would be erected to prohibit both through motor vehicle and pedestrian traffic both of which were the source of our problems. Further, it was pointed out at the original hear- ing that once the fence was constructed, trucks would no longer be able to proceed down the driveway which admittedly caused comment at the hearing. We specifically suggested that the trucks back down the alley and drive out or vice versa. Also, we recently made certain suggestions to neighbors (copy of letter attached) regarding other sources of trash removal which would accommodate their needs. Mr. Farrand, our original purpose of vacating the alley and in the construction of the fence remain unchanged; namely: the safety of ours and other children in the neighborhood and the security of our property. Specifically, you asked that we respond to two suggestions which were made at the July 29 hearing: 1. "That any barricades in this vacated alley be placed to permit solid waste pick-up trucks to turn around, and