12/8/1992 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

1992 BOOK 88 PAO,JE224 Director Pinto advised that if any adjustments are made today, every three acres removed from the total assessment will result in increasing the assessment charged the other property owners by one cent per square foot. The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard in this matter. Jerry Smith, 3645 3rd Street, came before the Board to appeal the assessment on his property of $14,326.33 for 2.75 acres. He related that paving would cost about $172,095, and even if the County paved the streets, the cost of developing six lots would be over $104,000. He noted that the Commission has made exceptions in other cases where the property did not adjoin a paved street, and he only is asking for the same treatment as everyone else has received in these situations. He suggested that if he or someone else decided to develop the property in the future, the assessment could be done at that time. Or he would be willing to sign a deed restriction against this 2-3/4 acres eliminating certain things being built there. Mr. Smith requested that the Board reduce his assessment to a 140 -foot frontage with a depth of 150 feet. Chairman Eggert asked Director Pinto to explain the difference between the Smith property and other properties mentioned by Mr. Smith, including certain property owned by Mr. Gallagher. Director Pinto pointed out that the two parcels in front of the Gallagher property are owned by someone other than Mr. Gallagher, resulting in a diminished benefit for Mr. Gallagher. Director Pinto did not think there were any similarities between the Smith property and the Gallagher property, since both pieces of the Smith property are owned by Mr. Smith. Commissioner Macht asked for clarification of the method used for assessing the Smith property, and Director Pinto explained they are being assessed independently because they are two separate parcels of 1.25 acres and 1.52 acres respectively. Commissioner Bird asked if deed restrictions were feasible, and Attorney Vitunac advised that the County should adhere to zoning codes and avoid contracts that result in spot zoning. Further, private deed restrictions are not enforceable by the County. Discussion ensued regarding the need for Mr. Smith to extend 2nd Lane and 3rd Street if he subdivides the property, and Community Development Director Bob Keating agreed with Director Pinto that it is difficult to predict how a piece of property will be developed. 16