Waterbury evening Democrat., 1895-04-25
AFTER MANY YEARS.

been summoned h TOT nearing Det0fo
 the different boards, in relation to pro- posed public Improvements on streets abutting their property. Quite good
 many of those present were women, all of whom collected in a group ata respectful
 distance from the men folks and discussed | the subject of sewers. sidewalks and lay outs in an intelligent manner. One of them said she had a good notion to lay out Mayor Kilduff, and the road board before going home "The idea of bringing us down here among this crowd of men, she sad, ''to ask us if we want that walk. Don't they know we want it?" The mayors of-
 fee was not large enough to accommodate all and the road and sewer boards adjourn ed to the district court room, the board of compensation taking up their quarters in the council chamber.
 Mayor Kilduff called the sewer board to order and the hearings were given, to pro- perty owners on Fourth street, between South Leonard and Charles streets. The property owners present were A. Mo- Donald, frontage 210 feet; James Colwell, frontage 110 feet; James Wagner. frontage, l no feet. The number of complaints that have come from that section of the town in relation to damage done by surface water led the board to believe that all the property owners would hail with delight the proposition to build sewers, thus re- lieving them of further annoyance from | surface water and settling all disputes among the neighbors in relation to the | sanitary condition of the place, but to the engagement of the mayor and the members of the board the owners of property who | appeared were opposed to the scheme. Then property owners on Charles street, 1 between Porter and Sixth streets, were called and the answers given were much more encouraging The following were in favor of sewers: Mrs hanora Luddy, feet 60; \. McDonald, 65; E. Brennan, 43; Maurice Keefs, 45; Edward Kenny, 100; Charles Stage, e; Mrs Kirschbaum, l14; Michael Jordan. 65. Three opposed the proposition: Morris Lallisr. feet 62A; James Colwell. 60; and George Burns. 50. The hearing in regard to sewers on Third | street met with a favorable response from Joseph Levetag, 40; Jeremiah Devine. 40; Daniel Campbell, 130; Mrs Thomas Mo. Namara, 150; W. J. McNamara, 50; Mrs kirchbaum, IA; Honora Luddy. 110. The following were opposed: Noise Lallier, l14; Patrick 'Glynn.
 The board had given all these matters considerable thought. had gone over the ground on several occasions and were fully conversant with the situation, and a vote was passed recommending to the court of common council that sewers be constructed in the different streets on which hearing had just been given.
 Lucien F. Burpse was granted permis- to connect his house on Grove street with the sewer pipe of L. J. Atwood.
 petition of George B. Brown asking for permission to make connections with the sewers was laid on the table. Part of of Mir Browns property is outside the city limits and the board wanted to be more fully informed before granting such a h- cense.
 The application of William E. Booth for permission to make sewer connections was referred back for proper filling out
 Here the sewer board ceased it's labors and the road board was called to order Property owners on Simon street were called in relation to grade and laying of walk on the west side of the streeet Those present in favor of the work were: Law renee kilbride. feet frontage, 50; Willia m Holland, 50; Mary A. Shanahan. 50; Peter Skehan. 50. The work was opposed by Daniel Houlihan, 50; Mrs Jane Kenney, 6O Peter Skehan gave some excellent reasons why the work should be ordered done and ably refuted the statement made al previous met ting of the board to the effect that the people on the street were too poor to put down walk. He said that every owner of property on the street could well afford to pay his share of the expense. and none more so than those who had opposed. The board voted to recom. mend to the court of common council that the work be ordered done; law day, July l5.
 The matter of grading and laying of side walks on South Riverside street was then taken up. The first name called was that of Patrick Shannahan. In answer to a question from the mayor as to whether he was in favor of the work Mir Shannahan said: Yes sir. And we would like to get walks there as soon as possible. We want to use them while we are living, for we will have no use for them after we are dead. Tbe street is in bad shape and has been for the past twenty five years" Mir Shannahah owns fifty feet frontage on the street Other property owners present who favored the work were: Thomas Carty. 50; Mary Carty. 50; Patrick Hickey, 100; Patrick Lynch, 50; Thomas McEvoy, 50; John Sautereau. 50. Those who opposed were: John Cronin. 50; John Begley. 50; Mrs Dennis Bropby. S3; John and Mar Garet Casey. 100. The board voted to re- commend that the work be ordered done
 The hearing in relation to sidewalks on Dublin street was continued until next week. when George Burns will name the amount of his damages
 The proposed grade and sidewalk on Mill street from South Main to Liberty street was the next subject. The work would be a great benefit to those living in that neighborhood and would also be much appreciated by the large number of people who use that street going to and from their work. Those present who favored the work were: Mrs Marie Hearney, AS; Thomas Wilton. 40; John Caffrey, 45; Christopher Miller, 47; Mrs Thomas Comber. 47: Hugh Flood 63; Edward Mo Mahon 65; John Mccarthy, 1OS. Luther Cummings and the Benedict & Burnham Go, who own 100 feet each, were opposed, unless they should receive compensation. The hearing was continued for one week.
 Engineer Cairns was instructed to pre- pare protiles for grade on the Lounsbury estate
 The board voted to recommend to the court of common council that the grade on South Main street, north of the Mad river, for a distance of about two hundred feet, be changed as per plans submitted by the engineer.
 Commissioner Henderson and Street h. ssector Kelley were appointed committee to procure a new street sweeper at an ex- pense not to exceed $650. The street in- spect1r was authorized to puEchese two tar kettles, price not to exceed ST5.
 1t was voted that property owners on Washington avenue, from South Leonard street to South Main street, be cited be- | fore the board on May 15 in reference to | the laying of walks on both sides of that | street. It was now almost midnight and | the board adjourned for c week.
 While the road and sewer boards were wrestling with various subjects in the dis | trict court room. the board of compensa- tion was holding an important session be- | fore a large and interested audience in the | council chamber. It vas the night set | down for hearing on the proposed ex- tension of Washington street and much |