Laserfiche WebLink
<br />-6- <br /> <br />Mrs. Don Lydon, 3024 Highcrest Road, stated that the reason the <br />contractors couldn't put the road in was that it was washed out <br />constantly by water and that in view of the relief that the people <br />on Lydia Avenue were gaining from this storm sewer, she felt they <br />should bear part of the assessment. <br /> <br />The Mayor again repeated that the assessment was based on property <br />contributing water to Highcrest Road and the area along Lydia Ave. <br />east of Highcrest Road did not contribute water toward Highcrest <br />Road, but it drained toward Highway 8. She asked then if the Council <br />did not feel that these people on Lydia Avenue would be benefiting <br />from the storm sewer. Mr. Schrenker answered that they were definitely <br />benefiting; that they had been victimized by water coming from other <br />than their own property in the past and they were merely being re- <br />lieved of a burden placed upon them by someone else. <br /> <br />Ronald Cutler, 2531 Brenner, stated that it appeared his whole lot <br />would be assessed and yet his water problem was very minor compared <br />to the problems around Lydia Avenue. He admitted that the slope of <br />the land is toward Highcrest Road but that he had no water problem <br />and yet he is paying more than the people who presently have a water <br />problem. <br /> <br />Mr. Turnlund stated that a clarification of the storm sewer assess- <br />ment policy seemed necessary since the basis of assessment was con- <br />tributing water to a drainage facility. Properties which contribute <br />water to the Highcrest Storm Sewer were assessed. Those properties <br />which did not contribute water were not assessed even though water <br />from the Highcrest Road ran across their property and they would be <br />relieved from the water problem if the Highcrest storm sewer was <br />installed. Mr. Cutler then asked if he would be assessed again in <br />the future for storm sewers. The Hayor stated that that portion of <br />the lot which was in this improvement would not be assessed again. <br /> <br />Richard C. King. 2983 Highcrest. Mr. King asked if there were any <br />possibility of water flowing over the road. TIle Mayor stated <br />generally the road was crowned in the middle so that water would <br />flow in either gutter. Mr. King then asked why the property on the <br />south end of Highcrest Road below Haple Lane was not being assessed <br />since they had a catch basin on the east side of Highcrest Road. <br />The Mayor stated that the engineers might have felt that flowage <br />coming from St. Anthony dictated the necessity for catch basins on <br />both sides of the road. <br /> <br />James J. Sweete, 2964 Patton Road, stated that although he did not <br />live in the affected area he lived in the general area and he wished <br />to discuss the matter roads. The Mayor asked that the comments on <br />roads be withheld in view of the fact that the hearing was for storm <br />sewer improvement. Swette asked if Highcrest Road had been accepted <br />and the Mayor stated that it had. ~tt. Swette asked on what basis the <br />road was accepted. Mr. Turnlund stated it was just accepted. The <br />Mayor explained that the Village had accepted streets in the past on <br />all kinds of basis, everywhere from accepting a road which had been <br />rough cut with a little dirt, putting oil on top of it, to paved <br />streets. Mr. SWette asked if Highcrest was ever surfaced. The Mayor <br />asked if he meant a hot-mix surface. Mr. Swette stated, no, road mix <br />