Gloucester County Democrat. (Woodbury, N.J.) 1878-1932, 1899-05-11
COUNCIL PROCEEDINGS.

At the stated meeting Of Council Tues.
day evening, all the members were present
except Mr., Clymer.
Minutes of the last meeting were read
and approved.
The first veto message of His Honor,
Mayor Samuel H. Laid, was the first bust
ress considered. and is as follows: -
WOODBURY.. N. j.. April 60 1879;
To the President and Members of City C0uflctf
GENTLENEN-The ordinance, entitlt an or
dinance to provide for grading, cHrblng and
paving Of side walks and cutters on Broad street.
from the junction of Salem and MaDtua avenue
10 Red Bank avenue, passed at a regular NEE ing
Of Council April ~ / hereby returned TO
your honorable body without my approval for
the following reasons, to-wit:-
Firstly-Sectiou / provides for the gra ding of
sidewalks along said Broad street 10 within four
feet of the building line, which see no reason
for as BY ordinance-steps. portieo or porches,
five feet from the building line Again the
damages to properties by such grading OF side
walks from the property of J seph J. Summerin
on the easterly side OF Broad street. 10 the
Friends meeting property, and from DR.. Henry
C. Clark's property the west side of the street
70 the Castor Works also at the southerly end of
Broad street, starting from about German street,
on both sides of said Broad street. to within
about three hundred feet of the junction of
Salem and NJ ,ntua avenues, viii be very heavy,
making the houses very unsightly, requiring
retaining walls under a number of porches and
Yerandas from TWO to four feet high it would
also effect the grade of all cross streets at the
places named AS nature has made hill at each
end OF Broad STIR et and said hills having been
built upon, the ordinance should be drawn in
such way as to do as little damage as possible to
the properties,
inch curb, or in other words, it is a change of
grade for the cutters, raising the same four
inches higher, thereby giving ONLY eight inches
fall in the roadway from the outer rail Of the
trolley track 10 the gutter next to the curb; the
gutter four feet from the curb, is to be by the
ordinance "a inches higher than at the curb.
thereby leaving only 81 inches fall from the
trolley rail to the outer edge IF the gutter, a
distance on the average Of about fifteen feet,
being little oyer one-Ihird of an inch to the
foot fall on the roadR ay, which in my opinion
is not enough for good road
Thirdly Section does not provide who shall
pay for the guttering of Broad street. The City
Charter, section g, provides where gutter is
paved by the owner or owners of lots, hen the
same shall be maintained and kept in repair at
the cost and expense of the city. The greater
part OF the cutters were paved by the owners of
lots hence the city would have to take charge
of them; for the city 10 pave the cutters that
had never been paved, and charge the same to
the city at large, would be an injustice to the
taxpayers, and particularly to the owners of
lots on Broad street who paid for their guttering
hence the ordinance should provide where gut
tiers had never been payed an equable portion of
said paving should be charged directly to the
owners o. such lots fronting on said cutters.
Fourthly-I also consider that the tiking up
the present stone cutters on Broad street and
replacing the same by Vitrified brick at a cost of
about $4,000, for the purpose of holding road
way that will cost only about $1,000, waste of
public money as it is no special public benefit.
SAML II. LADD. Mayor.
On motion Of Mr.. Burkett the veto mes
sage be received and filed. Mr.. Gladihg
lnoYed that we proceed to reconsider the
passage Of the ordinance and the President
stated the motions thus: Shall the ordin
ance become . law Notwithstanding the
veto of the Mayor? Mr. Burkett moved
that the ordinance be returned to the Or
dinance committee for correction.
Mr.. Best said many tax payers had been
to him and entered protest against spending
so much money for cutters. The opinion
was that SO large an outlay should be made
where it would be of more general benefit
take some street or portion of street, and
pave it permanently. He agreed with
some OF the objections raised by the Mayor,
but not all.
Mr.. Sithens agreed especially to the por
ton of the veto that objected. to the expen-
diture of so large an amount for cutters
Tax payers had expressed themselves to
him in opposition to such expenditure The
vote was taken and the veto sustained by
the following vote No. Batten, Best,
Burkett, Cloud, Davis, Leeds, Sithens. ~.
.-Glading.-1.