My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
78-078
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
Resolutions
>
1970-1979
>
1978
>
78-078
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/8/2007 1:07:14 PM
Creation date
11/13/2006 2:45:53 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
18
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />. <br /> <br />property which made that available for a good part of the extra <br />right-of-way needed and so we had only one other property owner <br />to deal with in this case, and it was not developed property. <br />That was a key factor, that it was not developed. <br /> <br />ACTING MAYOR WOODBURN: <br />If you have any comments or <br />name and address. <br /> <br />The meeting is now open for comments. <br />questions, could you rise, state your <br /> <br />MR. ARTHUR FREICHELS, 1292 Nursery Hill Lane: Are the lots <br />there the only ones to be assessed for the improvements? <br />Because I live on Nursery Hill Lane and I do have a letter. <br /> <br />MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: The let 'Ers that were sent out to people <br />on Nursery Hill Lane were for informational purposes, and I doubt <br />they would be assessed for this improvement. <br /> <br />MR. POPOVICH: The legal description was broader, and the <br />notice went out to more people than the existing lots that we <br />have been discussing. It's broad enough and, as you know, when <br />you order an improvement if there were some benefit to these other <br />people then obviously you could consider the assessment, and that's <br />one reason why they received the notice. On the other hand, there <br />was no intention in our presentation as we saw it, and as the <br />engineer saw it, to assess anybody other than the particular lots <br />we have addressed ourselves to. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />MR. CHARLES AMBLE, 1211 Amble Road: First of all, I would like to <br />straighten out the record. Somehow or another I was construed <br />as saying - making some remark to the effect that people on <br />Nursery Lane.were objecting to this entry on Amble Road. I did <br />not say that and I did not mean that. I appreciate all the effort <br />that was put into this thing by the engineers here, but somehow <br />I feel that this strip ,of land,- I would like to have the second <br />slide that you have up there. This particular strip of land in <br />here is a wooded section that I feel is being abused. This road - <br />proposed road that you have going through here will reduce this <br />from a five-lot plot to a three-lot plot which is a considerable <br />loss, plus the fact you're landlocking it, or arranging it in such a <br />way to also reduce its value some more, plus the fact we're going <br />to get some more assessments. We've been burned with assessments <br />to the point where we can't stand any more. There are a number <br />of people in our community who are out of their element in talking <br />about these things and all they do is get hung with these assess- <br />ments. I further feel - and I'm not talking about Nursery Lane - <br />I further feel Amble Road has enjoyed the privacy of a dead-end road <br />for ,some time and I just don't feel that a group of people should <br />come out and design something like this and deadlock or phony <br />up something to make a pleasant thing for themselves and to <br />hell with you, and come out on Amble Road without some kind of <br />round-table discussion before all this expense is brought about with <br />the engineers of our village, so I object to the whole thing. <br /> <br />7 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.