Laserfiche WebLink
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015 Laserfiche. All rights reserved.
5li <br />Board met in regular sesdion at 7:45 P.k. All members present. <br />v Hearing given on Vacation Resolution No.36 for vaeat ion of alley <br />between lots 22 and 23 in Original Plat of.,Lwell from Bridge Street to east Race, in <br />the City of South Bend, Indiana. <br />In the above matter Attorney Wm. Bergan appeared and objected to <br />said vacation but no written remonstrance was filed, and the Board therefore sustain <br />all former action taken and declare the above described property in all things rati- <br />fied c onf irmed and approved. <br />Resolved further that the City Engineer be instructed toprepare <br />a roll showing awards of damages and asessments of beneits to all parties and properties <br />interested in the bbove matter. <br />. Hearing had on Improvement Resolution No. 504 for pavement on <br />Niles Avenue from Howard Street to Leeper Avenue, In the City of South Bend, Indiana. <br />v In the above matter Attorney Drummond appeared against said improve- <br />ment and Attorney V. Jones for said improvement, but no written remonstrance wars filed. <br />ANdthe '.Board:being fully advised in the premises, decided that the benefits to <br />property liable to be assessed for said improvement are equal to the estimated cost <br />of the sa e, as re orted by the City Civil Eng ineex, and thereupon "takes final action <br />on said resolution as originally adonteu, and the same is hereby in all things rati- <br />fied c onf irmed and approved. <br />The Board reconsidered theta action on the above resolution for <br />paving Niles Avenue from Leeper Avenue to Napoleon Blvd. to Howard Street and decided <br />that the assessed valuation exceeded the estimated cost of the improvement and therefore <br />rejected said improvement. <br />Hearing given on Vacation Resolution No.35 for Vacation of South <br />Main Street from Jay Street to Ewing Avenue, in the City of South Bend, Indiana. <br />the above matter remonstrators appeared and no further remon- <br />strance was filed than one of March 28th. ,1917. Councilman Wm. Gobel appeared against <br />said vacation, representing property owners in sutth end of City, also Chester A. <br />Perkins and a number of other property owners appeared objecting to said vacation. <br />W. K. McHenry, Attorney A. G. Graham with ?sir. W. Ripple of the George Cutter Company <br />Attorney Vitus Jones, Herman A. Tohulka and Attorney Floyd Jellison appeared for <br />said vacation Attorney A. G. Graham representing Geo. Cutter Company, also fir. <br />Ripple of Geo. Cutter Company explained why the closing of South Main Street would <br />be necessary in order for them to build a factory or, property adjoing said Uain Street <br />which they would like to have;af or factory purposes. <br />The Board after due consideration-deodd4d to defer all action on <br />said resolution until Tuesday May 9th. ,1917 at 7: 45 P.M. <br />Hearin; had on Improvement Resolution No. 505 for pavement on <br />alleZ between lots 6 and 7 Burrough's Sub -Division of Bank Out Lots 115 and between <br />lots 56 and 57 in Henrl4k s & Grant's Addition from Marion Street to Navarre Street, in <br />v the City of South Bend, Indiana. <br />In the above matter remonstrators appearedbut no written remon- <br />strance , was filed. The Board having said matter under advisement find that Three resident <br />property owners appeared in person and remonstrated and the fourth property Mrs. Mary E. <br />Elbel represented by Attorney F. E. Lambert all objected to said improvement and the <br />Board decided that their objections should be sustained and that the resolution should <br />be and the same is hereby and ir' all things rescinded. <br />Hearing had on assessment roll and final estimate for pipe sewer <br />on` b�4Pherson Street from Thomas Street to Division Street, under Improvement Resolution <br />No. 477. In the City of South Bend, Indiana. <br />in th, above matter remonstrators appeared but no written remon- <br />strance was filed. The Board therefore find that the property assessed in said rolls <br />filed April 17th. ,1917 is benef itted in the amount of assessments as shown on said rolls <br />and the Board further find that the assessment rolls filed April 17th. ,1917 and the <br />final estimate allowed April 17th.,1917 should be and the same are hereby in all things <br />ratified,, c onf irmed and approved. <br />