Norwich bulletin., 1912-11-19
SEWER ASSESSMENTS
 RAISE MUCH OPPOSITION.
Water Street Property Owners Claim No Benefits from New Sewer There.

NO Benefits from New Sewer There.
 The hearing on the matter of as- easements for benefits from the recent ly completed Water street, Dunham street and Lafayette street sewers, be- lore the public works committee of the common council, Monday evening. last ed about an hour. the greater part of the time being taken up Win protests against assessment oh the property owners pn Water Street. Chairman M. n. Hourlgan l-cslded, and J. r. Will nams anu J.Kramer were the other coune--.-4en present, besides City Engi- neer George B Pitcher. who explained the layout of the sewers in question and answered inquiries as to locations and conditions. There were a number of interested parties on hand when the hearing opened at o'clock.
 The Water street sewer, or Little Water street as it has been known, was the first under consideration. William B. Young, representing the Lee & Osgood company, stated that in 1874 this property was assessed $429. .3O for sewer benefits and that under the rules of the board property of 100 feet depth was liable to but one assessment and that therefore there could be no taxation of this property at this time.
 Attorney Donald G. Perkins, repre- senting the heirs of the estate of Hen- ry Bill, asked Mir. Pitcher to explain the location of the sewer, and he did so, saying that the work was comple.- ed Oct. of this year at a cost os G,65a27. MT. Perkins said that as one part of the Bill property had already been assessed for sewers and had am pie sewage facilities connected with Main street, there was no benefit whaS soever by the Water street sewer and that no assessment could well be charged for benefits. The other prop erty, at the corner of Shetucket and Water streets, if assessed at all, said MT. Perkins, should not be assessed in full, owing to the fact that the sewer l is not opposite it and is 56 feet distant l from the property so that a sewer con- : nected with this line would entail great expense.
 Had Ample Sewage Facilities. Attorney William H. Shields, repre- senting the Kronig and J. B. Shannon 1 interests, asked MT. Pitcher about the sewage from the Reynolds barn and Lucas properties, now owned by MT Shannon, and the city engineer stat l ed that in the past those pieces Of property had been connected with the Shetucket street sewer and that the Lucas property had also been connect i ed with the Market street sewer M- l Shields said that if these two lines had been capable of carrying off the sew i age from the properties when the Lu- caS building was occupied by large number of tenants and the Reynol1, 1 property held a big stable, they were still ample for draining the property Mir. Shields mentioned MT. Sham Or as the most public spirited. man of th' city as well as the largest taxpayer and said that it would be an injustict to tax this man for a new sewer wheI his predecessors had always had ample
 sewage facilities
 Has Sewer Pipes to Main Street.
 In regard to the Kronig property MT
 Shields stated that this, like the Le'
 & Osgood property, extended iron
 Main to Water streets, and had ampl'
 sewage facilities on Main street ant
 that thus the new sewer was of n
 benefit whatever It has been lai'
 down in our courts, said MT. Shields
 that when a party has ample sewag
 facilities there is no need and no bene
 fit from other sewers. Replying to MT
 Shields questions, MT. Pitcher sal
 that the sewer was approximately I
 feet from the Kronig property and tha
 to connect the property with the sew
 CT would require cutting through sol
 i'd ledge for almost the entire distance
 at gre:J: expense. MT. Shields in con
 cluding said that there could be no le
 gal assessment on the property, Q
 there was no benefit, and, secondly,
 there was need for this sewer, to con
 meet MT. Kronigs property with I h
 property owner.
 On Dunham Street Sewer.
 The Durham street sewer, which wa l constructed at a cost of S696.07, wa
 next taken up. Frank A Bill repre-
 senting the heirs of the estate of Pal
 mer Bill, stated that this property ha . been assessed for the West Main stree
 sewer and that a private sewer ha
 been constructed along Dunham sure to connect with the West Main stree
 sewer; that the property thus had am
 ple sewage facilities and was not ben efited by the new sewer. D. T. She : asked as to the method of assessmer 3 and said that he had no objection 3 assessment provided that all were tax
 ed at the same rate.
 Others liable for assessment for th1 sewer, who, however, were not pres r ent, are as follows: Elizabeth Park l Thomas J. Murray, Marshall H. Whit ford. estate of John Glidden, Mrs l !, c. Glidden, Robert A. Sherman, ,Charl, 3 Schlough, on north side, and Mary -l Ward, Gertrude l. Ward Martha i Ward, John F. Clabby, Catherine Clat t by, Max Zerawslxi, Albert L. Potte f George W. Rathbun, Nellie M. Ratf s bun, Albert L. Potter and George 5 Gadbois.
 Thinks Cemetery Ought to Pay.
 In regard to the Lafayette stre e sewer. Seth l.. Brown said that h :, property was not benefited, as he a r ready had private sewer. W. ,, Yeomans suggested that as the Yant . cefnetery would be drained by the ne T sewer it should be taxed at the san n rate as other property. The cost the sewer was $526.03, and those who 7, the committee had named as liable ,, assessments are William H. Yeoman n Lucia Gager, Michael c. Conway, Se' z l.. Brown, Rikske A. Langenbach, Al
 A. Hopkins, ol, the east side, the Fal e Co., Ruth M Branche, Herbert 1 l Wightman, Bryon A. Wightman, Laul ,. Subert.
 - NJcnRthN