New Britain herald., 1914-11-18

Samuel Knight Kate Norton did not favor any change. J. c. Webb was against it. He said the Arch street property owners have been taxed enough for improvements. The D. c. Judd Co. was in favor and Philip Bar deck and B. H. Hubbard were opposed The South Congregational church 1 dld not oppose the improvement pro- vided it was allowed to continue its present five foot walk and fill in the ] space between the outer edge of the walk and the curb with flag or con- crete.
 The walks were ordered widened by June 1.
 1 Arch Street, West Pearl to Monroe. :, Five foot walk on east side of Arch street, from West Pearl to Monroe l streets.
 Hyman Horwitz was opposed. The Fl. J. Elliott estate, by Judge George w. Andrew, was opposed. A four foot walk is good enough, said the judge. William H. Muller was opposed. He said he had received a bill for re- laying the walk and now the board wants him to pick up the walk and throw it in his back yard. August Schmalfuss said he wouldn't object if the change was ordered in year or two. l.. A. Bunce was not in favor or against the change, said Henry Hear.
 The five foot walk was ordered sub- stituted for a four foot walk by June l.
 Pennington Avenue.
 Street, grade and twenty-four foot building lines, Harrington avenue, from Allen street to Blake road.
 Paul Bellman favored fifteen foot building line Frank Osac was of the same mind as was his brother, Joseph. Fl. Doolittle said a twenty-four foot line would take away several shade trees and he will expect damages. He would not object to a fifteen foot line. John Skritulsky favored a twenty foot line. Charles and Ella Bowen thought twenty-four foot building line too much. J. J. Watson objected to losing six and one-half feet on one end of his property and nineteen feet on the other. He did not want to lose several valuable shade trees.
 Julius and Katherine Huck were opposed to the change from a fifteen foot building line. The George Gehring estate would be satisfied with a fifteen foot building line. Augusta Bellman also favored a fifteen foot line. The widening of the street would force storm water into her property.
 P. Villain and Anna Radil said they would ask damages if the street is widened. Egar c. Linn was re- ported in favor of all proposed changes. So was Peter Kalowski. H. V. and M. HI. Camp favored a fifteen foot building line.
 The proposed grade and street lines and a fifteen foot building line were adopted.
 Seymour Street.
 Five foot flag or concrete walk on north side of Seymour street from Elm to Stanley street.
 Barnet Horstein was opposed, as a four foot walk is good enough for him. The New Britain Real Estate and Title company believes the present walk is good enough. Adam Yubank1 didn't see any need of a wider walk. The four foot walk was good enough fifty years ago and it should suffice now. he said. Martha Steinwedel would be satisfied either way. Albert Heinzmann was opposed to any change, as was John F. Burns. Mary Mccarthy wanted foure foot walk.
 A four foot walk on the new grade was ordered by June 1.
 Lyman Street.
 Reduction of building line on Lyman street from Grove to Silver streets from eighteen to fifteen feet. A. Adamowicz was decidedly in favor. The Booth estate was opposed. Wal l ter Maliskey was of the same mind.
 It was decided to allow the line to remain at eighteen feet and MT. l Adamowicz was given leave to with l draw. Adamowicz was responsible l for all the fuss, as he built a house l three feet over the eighteen foot l building line.
 Market Street.
 Taking land on Market street, from | Jubilee street to Newington avenue. 1 for fifty foot highway.
 John Larson favored a forty foot !! street and five foot building line. l William Richter thought a forty foot l street wide enough. Andrew Olson was 1 opposed to a fifty foot street and l didn't see how a fifty foot street could | be built, as some houses are built l almost on the street now. He se- cured a deed to land on the street in 1895 and this calls for a forty foot