Laserfiche WebLink
<br />MRS. C. A. THORPE, 915 W. county Road B: lJanted to know <br />if it would be more costly to put in sidewalks later after the <br />curb and gutter had been put in. <br /> <br />MR. JOHN A. KELLERMAN, 1066 ~J. County aoad B: Asked how <br />wide the driveways to County Road B would be. <br /> <br />M.l-t. FRANK P. OOAAN, 1044 W. County Road B: Asked why the <br />curb and gutter and assessment couldn't be eltminated and a <br />shoulder built for a walkway. <br /> <br />. . . . . There being no further per-sons desiring to be <br />heard on Impl-o'-e=nents 66-8 or. &'5-9, the hearing recessed <br />for ten minuten. . . . . <br /> <br />The Village Clerk presen~:8d affidavits showing publication of <br /> <br />Notice of Hearing on proposod S~ ,r~. Sewer Dmprovement No. 66-11 <br /> <br />in accordance with the rescll:.:ttion adopted January 29, 1966 which <br /> <br />affidavit was examined and found to be satisfactory and was <br /> <br />directed to be filed by the Clerk. The village Clerk also <br /> <br />presented a Certificate showing mailin~ of notices of the public <br /> <br />hearing to affected property owners. <br /> <br />The Mayor then directed the Clerk to read the description <br /> <br />of the general nature and est~ted cost of the proposed ~mprove- <br /> <br />ment and the area proposed to be assessed therefor, as stated <br /> <br />in the published notice of hearing. After reading of the notice, <br /> <br />all persons present were afforded opportunity to be heard, and <br /> <br />the names and addresses of the persons appearing and heard by the <br /> <br />Council, and the substance of the views presented by them, were <br /> <br />as follows: <br /> <br />MR. THOMAS HENOE~ON, 1027 to\T. Burke: In favor of the <br />improvement. <br />