<br />-e
<br />
<br />tvould have beC'n defeL.,.(~d until development of th(~ 1110:,,'1. tlj. ,ilL. Tei tzcl
<br />added that there h1d been em error in the churye fir, Ik' Lu11 selvCI connection
<br />rather than Just: an extcllsio/l, and that would be crlc'dilc-,..l "qainst Mr. TljSOn'S
<br />assessment. Go,inq back to the J6-foot assessment:, ,"l'. '/',::it:zeJ said the total
<br />assessment against thu lJroperty would have been the salllC rL!qardless of the!
<br />subdivision, it was a I/UCStiOJJ only of when it had to h; ]Jaid. lie added that
<br />the residence Ivas inclu 'ed in the subdivision, therefore' h'dS assessed on the
<br />J6-foot basis.
<br />
<br />Counci,lman Bradley asked about zon.ing in the Golden (;ardL'ns area, how many
<br />.lots Ivere involved, h'l),}t.llC'r tile ]nopert9 rJufllanded d .<';tn:'f'twidcl' t:hi.Jn 28 feet.
<br />Nr. '1'oi tze,I iillSWerl.'d tikI t there k'cre [i vc lots, one 90-iuot Frontayc, tile!
<br />rest 72 to 73 f.ect. Also, that the subdivision ordjlld/lC(~' rcqll.ircd any strce
<br />lon<]er than 2'100 feet to be paved to 36-foot Ividth, short:er than 2400 feet,
<br />28-[00t width. ilL! added that the policy when draft:ed referred to underde-
<br />veloped land as land t1wt had not been subdivided.
<br />
<br />Recommcnda bon: Mr. Bradl ey recommended tha t the assessment
<br />helc:vicd uS proposed, except that the lot on
<br />wllich Nr. '1'I/son's resJdQnCL' is loci1I:L'd should
<br />1)L' a::;scsscd on 211-fooL lJi./sis.
<br />
<br />Mr. Hamel thought the enti re proper/'y should be
<br />assessed o~ ]6-[001: basis })(:!CdUSC tilL' lot" on Ivhich
<br />the house was located was a parL of the overall
<br />development.
<br />
<br />e
<br />
<br />4. C.B.77l - Levying assessments for paving streets within Somerset Hills II .
<br />Subdivision; sanitary and storm sewer within Somerset Hills II and
<br />k,i thin l(iU fce~.?~J}Ou!}!:.ICJri!!,~~hercof (71-2~ dnd /4-31)
<br />No wri tten PfOt;]st:;;;-;;-l' l"('quost:s to 00 J,e.:lrrl I>,cre recL'.ived.
<br />
<br />I<ecollllllcnrlat:,ion: Levy i./ssc:s,c;ment as pruposed.
<br />
<br />.
<br />
<br />5. C.B.772 - Levying assessments for sanitdllJ ::ewcr on Central Uoulcvarcl from'
<br />29th AVL'Illle to "';OU/'11 1200 feet ,1Ild Z,etlv<'('1l C'ent,.,.J1 Houlevo1rrl and
<br />Sprinl} 130ul('vaul to serve o1,l1 Jots in Hunl:er's lJaven Suhdivision
<br />(74-]8)
<br />Rosa Dutell, owning property on the corner of 28th Avenuc' and Central lloule-
<br />vard, ohjected to the assessment on the basis that the property was already
<br />served by connection to sewer line on 28th Avenue. She understood that city
<br />property was not being asses'sed hecause the sewer was of no vr1.lue to' tha t
<br />property and she wondered Ivhy tllCl t would not app.ly to her property. Bert
<br />Te,j tze,l, ci ty engineer, exp,lained tila t the propcrty on the corner of 28th
<br />and Central was assessed for the 28th Avenue sewer, thr]re was a selJiJrate
<br />lot adajcent to the corner 101: which had not hecn assesscd. Since thal- time
<br />thil t lot was di vdr:d, pdrt of it ildried to the corner lot, and the assessment
<br />at this time is against that portion of the property Ivhicll had not been
<br />charged for the 28th Avenue line. With regard to the city property, Mr.
<br />Teitzel said that the policy has been to assess property benefited by a
<br />'gravity connection. The' city property is be],ol>' the elevation of the road
<br />and additional selvers would be required to serve that property. In further
<br />explanation to Counc,i1mall Hamel, Mr.. Te,itzel said that that assessment for
<br />the line on 28th was made agai,nst only a portion of the property on the
<br />corner, not to the total il.'; .it is nOlv situdted. The extens,ion of the present
<br />lint;! is nmv serving the ba.lance of the property. even thou..,/) there is not
<br />a sepa~ate service connection, there is benefit to the balance of the prop-
<br />erty for which an assessment has not yet been levied.
<br />
<br />\~1..
<br />
<br />4/14/75 - 35
<br />
|