11/06/1978 Board of Public Works Minutes

Home Browse Search

REGULAR MEETING PUBLIC HEARING - IMPROVEMENT RESOLUTION NO. 3464 NOVEMBER 6, 1978 303 This was the date set for holding a public hearing on Improvement Resolution No. 3464 for the construction of a sanitary sewer on Riverside Drive and Riverside Place. The Clerk tendered proofs of publication of notice in the South Bend Tribune and the Tri- County News which were found to be sufficient. Mr. McMahon reported that the City received a petition for sewer construction in this area a number of years ago. At that time, because a lift station was required, the project cost under Barrett Law was rather high since the property owners would have been required to pay for 50% of the construction of the lift station as well as the sewers. The project was rejected by the property owners. The City has now received a new petition for sewer construction in the area and has prepared plans and specifications in response to that petition. At the present time, the City is in a position to offer to pay the total cost of the lift station, which is figured at $19,800 and will also pay 50% of the cost of the sewer construction. This brings the total project cost to the property owners down.to approximately $21,223 and that figure includes the tap cost. Mr. McMahon noted that copies of the Assessment Roll showing the assessment to each property for the proposed construction have been distributed to all those present in regard to this matter. He said if the property owners do not want the project constructed, the Board will take no further action unless a public health problem develops in the area. If that should occur, the Board of Health could request that the Board proceed with the construction to eliminate the health problem. If fifty -one per cent of the affected property owners are not in favor of the project, the sewer will not be constructed. William Voor advised the Board that he is the Attorney for the Hickey Company, petitioners in this matter. The Company owns a piece of property they have been unable to develop because of the lack of water and sewers in the area. Mr. Voor urged the Board to take favorable action on the project. Joseph Hickey of the Hickey Company stated that the Company acquired the property in 1973 for the purpose of a development with the understanding that utilities would be available. When they originally investigated acquisition of this property, they.contacted the City Engineer's office and were given to understand that a sewer would be constructed in the near future. They proceeded on that basis to acquire the property. They have now abandoned the idea of a development on the property and have tried to sell the property. They have been unable to sell the property without giving some assurance that water and sewer will be available as this is presently a no man's land. They inquired about a variance to allow them to drill a well and put in a septic system. The City asked that a petition for the sewer construction be filed. Mr. Hickey, said the company feels that something should be done to construct the sewers or grant a variance to allow them to proceed with a septic system so that they are not penalized by owning a piece of property with which they can do nothing. Wayne Werts, 1809 Riverside Drive, said he is an affected property owner listed on the assessment roll fqr the project. Mr. Werts said he is a professional engineer and is interested in energy and energy conservation. He submitted to the Board a remonstrance petition which he said was signed by ten of the affected property owners. He noted that this is more than one -half of the owners involved. Mr. Werts then read from articles in the South Bend Tribune on problems occurring with flooding in some areas of the City when water mains are flushed and a second article which stated the favorable aspects of septic systems over sewer systems and which indicated no incidents of disease traced to properly installed septic systems. Mr. Werts noted the property owners in the area are very energy- conscious and want to retain the systems they have, with which they are very satisfied. Mr. Canfield, 1891 Riverside Drive, said he agreed with the statements made by Mr. Werts. On behalf of the property owners remonstrating, Mr. Canfield suggested that a variance be granted to Mr. Hickey in order that he does not have a wasted property. He said the property owners in the area are happy with the systems they have.