07/28/1980 Board of Public Works Minutes

Home Browse Search

REGULAR MEETING JULY 28. 1980 should not be vacated since it might provide access to the abutting property owners. Mrs. Wroblewski again stated that she objected to the vacation because it would only bring the wrecking company closer to her property. She stated that the area contained rats and many weeds and junk. She also expressed concern over the danger of a fire in her home and the fact that there was no hydrant on Phillipa and that the fire trucks would need to use the alley to get water to her house. She also informed the Board that her insurance had been increased twice because of the distance from her home to a fire hydrant. Mrs. Louise VanDerHeggen, 1905 South Phillipa, stated that the tenants on the property have, in the past, used part of her property to conduct their operations, and that there is a great deal of truck traffic hear her home. She also wad concerned about the rats and junk cars on the property. Mr. McMahon stated that, if the vacation was approved, there would be no vehicular traffic allowed. Mr. Frisk stated that the alley has been impassable and there have never been any trucks using the alley. He stated that there were trees and vegetation in that area, and it is difficult to maintain. Mrs. Wroblewski informed the Board that teenage children congregate in the area and use Mr. Weaver's property in the back near the alley for smoking and drinking. Mr. William Weaver, owner of the majority of lots in the area and the petitioner in the proposed vacation, stated that he has plans to clean up the lots and cut certain trees and level the properties to make them more appealing. Mr. McMahon stated that the Board understood that there was currently very limited use of the alley for vehicles. Apparently, the lots bordering the alley owned by Mr. Weaver were in need of some clean -up according to Mrs. Wroblewski and Mrs. VanDerHeggen, since they complained about trees, brush, weeds and rats. In effect, he felt the property owners were telling the Board that the alley, while not passable, acted as a buffer for their properties and that this was their reason for objecting to the proposed vacation. He felt their request should be honored. He felt it was one thing for Mr. Weaver to say that his properties would be cleaned up and maintained at this time, but if the vacation was approved, the Board would have no control or guarantee that this would be done. He asked Mr. Weaver to work together with the neighborhood and clean up his properties to make the entire area more attractive. In view of the fact that two out of three property owners in that block objected to the vacation, he felt the Board could not approve it. He also stated that he felt Mrs. Wroblewski and Mrs. VanDerHeggen would not oppose the alley vacation if the area surrounding the alley was cleaned up. Mrs. Wroblewski stated that she would use the alley if it was possible, and that she has had to have her garbage picked up on the street because the alley is impassable. Mr. McMahon asked that the property owners try and work together in an effort to resolve these problems, and he felt that if this was done, the Board could again consider the vacation of the alleys in question. Mr. Frisk asked if the Board would consider the vacation of the east -west alley at this time, and Mr. McMahon stated that the Board would not. Upon a motion made by Mr. McMahon, seconded by Mr. Kernan and carried, the alley vacations were denied. VACATION RESOLUTION NO 3492. 1980 CONFIRMED (HIGH INDUSTRIAL PARK This was the date set for holding a public hearing on Vacation Resolution No. 3492, 1980, for the vacation of the 20' and 14' alley that runs northwesterly off of High Street, 33' south of Sample Street for a distance of 250' more or less, in the N.E. (4) of Section 13, Township 37 North, Range 2 East in the City of South Bend, Indiana. The Clerk tendered proofs of publication of notice in the South Bend Tribune and the Tri- County News which were found to be sufficient. It was noted that letters had been received from the various city agencies indicating that there was no objection to the proposed vacation. There was no one present to remonstrate against the proposed vacation. Upon a motion made by Mr. McMahon, seconded by Mr. Hill and carried, the Board confirmed