CC_Minutes_1966_1003 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

The Mayor announced that the meeting was open for the consideration of objections, if any, to said proposed assessment. All persons present were then given an opportunity to present oral objections, and all written objections theretofore filed with the Village Clerk were presented and considered, and all such objections were tabulated as follows: Name ~g.Qer~y ~at~-2f~Ejection HERMAN HINRICHS, 696 It\,. Shryer: Has two lots but his home is built on parts of both. Therefore, he feels he should only be assessed for one lot. CHARLES M. ZOUBEK, 1925 Asbury: Has been assessed, but says there is no conceivable way his property could drain into the storm sewer system since the drainage is in the opposite direction toward Ryan Avenue. FRANK J. V~LEY, 1061 Roselawn: Being assessed for five lots but because of the layout of the property he feels he should be assessed for only four. JOHN W. WALLRAFF, 2001 Alameda: Has one homesite but is being assessed for two lots. EVERETT L. BURKHOLDER: 2551 N. Lexington: He has neighbors not being assessed whose drainage runs through his property the same way it did before the storm sewers were put in. Further, his is one of the original houses in Roseville and the property is laid out in such a way that the front area of at least 300 feet in depth could not be broken up because of zoning. He, therefore, feels that being assessed for five lots is excessive. The legal description is Lot 1, Block 1, T. M. Connor Plot. URBAN SCHULTZ, (owns let at 1262 w. Si Ilman) - (1 i yes at 1454 Eldridge) Has 5 lots on Skfllman and 4 on Belmont Lane. Objected to double assessment - some lots are lower than others - and on Belmont Lane the street doesn't come through and there is no storm sewer but he's being assessed. MR. KLUCSAR, 2599 N. Lexington: Being assessed $9,500. Always had good drainage and sees no reason for the storm sewer. Further, he believes it will be drying up a lake on his property.