Laserfiche WebLink
property. Essentially, what we are asking you to do is to exclude <br />Mr. Jacobs because he is not a public health threat, he doesn't <br />need water, and taking him out of this district will not affect the <br />provision of service to those areas that really need to be included <br />within that district. <br />Commissioner Eggert remarked that Mr. Jacobs may not wish to <br />subdivide at this time,.but he can subdivide should he wish to do <br />SO. <br />Attorney Wilson responded that Mr. Jacobs would have to plat <br />a road down one of the boundaries or through the center of the <br />property. <br />Director Pinto advised that the Board has set a policy that <br />would assess a maximum of 2 acres for a single lot with a specific <br />depth. If you do not assess the larger property owners at least to <br />a maximum of 2 acres, you are penalizing the small property owners <br />because square footage represents the linear feet requirements in <br />order to service a property. <br />Attorney Wilson stated there are 5 -acre parcels next to Mr. <br />Jacobs that are only assessed for 2 acres with the back 2 acres not <br />being assessed which have twice the impact as his, but which are <br />being assessed for the same amount. Those parcels are all 325 feet <br />wide, where Mr. Jacobs' property is 169 feet wide. County <br />development regulations call for a 60 foot right-of-way for a road <br />so any road would have to go straight down the middle of this 2 - <br />acre parcel. If you take 60 feet out of the middle, that leaves <br />two 50 -foot deep lots which you would not be able to build on <br />because you need 25 -foot run setbacks and 20 -foot back setbacks <br />under current County subdivision regulations. The other large <br />parcels are being assessed for only the front portion, and Mr. <br />Jacobs' assessment is nearly as high as the largest piece of <br />property in this assessment district. <br />Chairman Tippin raised the possibility of applying the 150 - <br />foot rule to Mr. Jacobs' property. <br />Mr. Wilson responded that essentially Mr. Jacobs would be <br />paying about three-quarters of what the 5 -acre parcels are paying <br />but he has less than one-half the property. <br />Director Pinto stated that it is obvious that Mr. Jacobs can <br />build a larger house than the people with 50 -foot lots and there <br />truly is more benefit than the 50 -foot lot owner. If the benefit <br />is not actual consumption, it is fire flow. We are building the <br />water line and the dollars are being spent and if you exempt <br />someone, it only carries over to someone else. This specific <br />OCTOBER 4, 1994 25 <br />