9/11/1991 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

into 8 or 20 lots and noted that he can see some equity there. Lot 6 east of that, however, which is 5 acres was purchased by Mark Smith in total rather than 1/2 after the title company refused to insure it as a one-time split because it did not meet the criteria relating to road frontage. Lot 5 owned by Mr. Larson has the same problem. Mr. Mensing continued to list property in this area where a one-time split is not obtainable, He noted that he personally owns and lives on Lot 15. He has 5 acres zoned AG and he is being asked to pay $30. The Semblers own 15 acres zoned AG, and the County is asking them to pay $90 for raw land that could only be developed at a maximum of 3 homes. Mr. Mensing contended they should pay $18 not $90, and if he did his arithmetic right, he is asking the Board to make an adjustment where they collect from the people in this area $78 in lieu of $372 and carry forward $400 instead of something in excess of $700 next year without making any other adjustment. He clarified that he is asking that the Board adjust the ordinance for any person who can demonstrate that he has in excess of 1 acre in this district that cannot be split without a zoning change or a road being built so that they pay for one unit for their entire parcel and not per parcel/acre as written. Mr. Mensing believed the majority have 60 x 140 lots, and contended that at the rate of $6.00 a home, you have enough money to support the District with the budget presented with the change he is requesting. Chairman Bird felt that the argument he made earlier about the benefits accruing to everyone from the drainage project were valid, but he was not as positive he could make the same argument about the benefits from the street lights. Director Davis explained that the logic of assessing on a per parcel/acre basis is the more land you have in the benefitted are, the more benefit it would have on your property. The street lighting is within the community of Roseland; it is a linear and distinct corridor; and everyone Mr. Mensing just talked about accesses the Roseland Road corridor. The philosophy of this District was to create a safe major collector roadway through the Roseland corridor, and Director Davis did not feel you can dispute the fact that the Roseland Road corridor serves the whole described area in an equal way. You can access property whether it is 5 acres and AG the same as you access any other property. The streetlight district was designed along the whole benefitted area, and we find no inequity in the assessment program. Chairman Bird asked if there is any way to do this adjust- ment Mr. Mensing is suggesting now, and then if these properties are further divided, catch them at that time. SEP I i IiW 49 BOOK F;;�'