8/20/1996 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Jackson said that he is here on behalf of Jackson Bros. Groves and Theodore Jackson, who he assumes are being assessed the same as he is. If that is true, then those 2 properties are being assessed for about 20% of the assessment and he felt that would be unfair. At Chairman Adams' request, Mr. Chastain displayed a map of showing the configuration of the two parcels in question. Attorney Vitunac advised that if Mr. Jackson could show that the private easement will never be used for residential or anything else, maybe we could look at that. Right now, however, the fact is that he has a private easement which we think is a useful piece of land. Attorney Vitunac said he would have to know more about it. Commissioner Bird inquired about the formula that was applied to the 38 acres with the easement connection, and Mr. Chastain advised that they applied the 2 -acre minimum rule that has been used on other properties along water routes. It was felt that if those properties could be developed, they should share proportionately the cost of the assessments. The rules say that this parcel should not receive less than a 2 -acre or a 89,120 square feet assessment. Mr. Jackson stated that he would accept that explanation, but wished to have a further explanation of why these properties have to pay 2631 percent of the cost. Commissioner Bird reiterated that it has been determined that the square footage formula is the most fair. It does work against somebody who has a home on a fairly large piece of property, but the theory is that the water being there will benefit the property owner if he wishes to develop the property at some point in the future. Mr. Jackson emphasized that the property has contained one single home for 20 years and there are no plans to develop that property. No requests have been made to develop it further. Mr. Chastain explained various other assessments on properties similar to Mr. Jackson's parcel and he noted that the two 1-1/4 acre parcels to the west of Mr. Jackson's easements are fully assessed and the owners are in support of the assessment. Mr. Jackson pointed out that a petition was given to them only a day before the petition was due to be turned in and they didn't have the time to evaluate the assessments, which is one of the reasons they didn't participate in the petition process. Attorney Vitunac noted that the 19 -acre parcel will have water available and Mr. Jackson will be paying for only 2 acres. He believed the people who should be complaining are the owners who 34 AUGUST 20, 1996 BOO F': 853