Laserfiche WebLink
100 <br />2). The Village could proceed exactly as they started to proceed; to repave <br />the road in accordance with the recommendations of our Engineer and Building <br />Commissioner. The obvious problems are the homeowners maintaining it is a <br />private roadway and the threat of litigation. He was notified of that in <br />writing and in person by several people, including Mr. Russo, an attorney. <br />Mr. Busa asked what type of litigation Mr. Feneli was referring to. <br />Mr. Feneli said we have been threatened with litigation indicating the road is <br />a private roadway. If we attempt to spend any public funds on that priVate <br />roadway the taxpayers will sue saying we have no right to spend money on what <br />is already designated a private roadway. <br />The second problem is that Marie Brown whose address faces North Aintree, but <br />whose side property borders Beechers Brook has indicated she owns the roadway <br />to the center line of the road. He is checking that and does not have a <br />definitive answer yet. If she does own to the center line there are two options; <br />a) As a municipality, take that portion of the road immediately and have a <br />court later determine the value of the property taken. <br />b) Negotiate with her to purchase the property. We can declare that road not <br />to be her private property and declare it to be a public access way. One of <br />the main problems is that many people travel Beechers Brook.Road, not just the <br />residents of the road. If we allow this road to be repaired by the homeowners <br />in the way they see f it, and then allow the public to use the road, we then <br />face the risk of the road deteriorating earlier than the road recommended by <br />the Engineer. Then we would either have to redo the road ourselves by going <br />through the assessment method or paying for it ourselves or leaving it as it <br />is now, letting it deteriorate over a number of years and doing minimal work <br />on it. <br />None of the options are very pleasing. Any option that we take will probably <br />result in some cost to the Village. He feels the residents who abutt that <br />roadway have not granted the easements to the public to pass over it. They do <br />not have that right, they do not own the roadway. He does not feel they could <br />stop them from assessing either. The road was owned by a private development <br />company. He never transferred title of ownership to the residents, except for <br />Marie Brown. The corporation that owned it has never stopped the public or the <br />Village from traversing the roadway,.has never stopped the Village from spending <br />money on the roadway. He said Council must make the decision of whether or not <br />to proceed with the assessment. He feels we could proceed and take this roadway <br />with the pitfalls mentioned above. <br />Mr. Busa said he does not feel Council wishes to get involved in a confrontation <br />with their neighbors. He asked if Council was past the point of no return. He <br />asked for input from the Village Engineer and Building Commissioner. <br />Mr. Feneli said several residents at the meeting last week indicated their <br />contractor said the road bed was not necessarily in as bad condition as Mr. <br />Hovancsek had previously indicated. They feel the road could be repaved with <br />6- 8" of- concrete and feel the road Mr. Hovancsek designed with concrete <br />gutters etc, is much more than they need. Since Mr. Hovancsek was not present <br />at that meeting he feels he deserves a chance to explain why he designed the <br />road the way he did.