CC_Minutes_1981_0810 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Lot 3 and half of 4 is 21,450, so that's more than 5,000 square feet more than ours, but they're being assessed on only 117.4 front feet. Also, Lot 5 and half of ,4 is considerably larger than ours because it's a lot and a half, and they're also being assessed on a front footage that is considerably less than ours. The reason that this has corne to pass in this case is that you can see that the lot line between number 2 and number 3 is exception- ally long and the lot line that was created by splitting number 4 is also very long. That lot is a four sided +ot, as is Lot 5 and half of 4, and so is Lot 7, the other lot on the cul-de-sac. Our lot is the only one that is five sided. The calculations are based on the two sides, 124 feet and 105.3 feet. So we have a very small lot size that is being divided into the total number of square feet and the odd lot formula in this case, because it's considering our lot as a five sided lot, the same as a four sided lot, does not adequately or realistically consider the true depth of the lot, like it does for the other lots in the cul-de- sac. That's why I think it's unfair. My whole point is that the proposed assessment in this situation is not proportional to the size of the lot. The intent of the other assessments, from what I understand, is to tax people based on the size bf the lot, on the square footage of the total lot. So rather than stand up here .and just say it's all wrong, I've come up with a couple of possible solutions, and I think both of my solutions have to do with square footage of the lot - number one, you can figure out an amount assessable per square foot on a lot. The other way to do it would be to figure an average depth of all the lots in the cul-de-sac and divide that average into the total square footage of the lot. Then you'd have an assessment that is relative to the square footage of each of the lots. I guess my request is to be considered in a fair and equitable manner. It's only as simple as that. We expect to pay more than the people on Lot 7 because their lot is considerably smaller than ours, but we would also hope that we wouldn't be taxed as much as those whose lots are considerably larger in the same development. MAYOR DEMOS: Okay, we know what you're saying and when this is concluded, we continue the adoption of the assessment roll until the 24th of August and we'll look into this between now and then instead of just making some remarks off the cuff right now and not knowing what we're talking about. We did take this into consideration a number of years ago and I suppose we have a difference between odd lots on cul-de-sacs and odd lots elsewhere. At that time we thought we had the best of all worlds when we came to the corner. MRS. JANET SILLIMAN, 1244 Belair Circle: I think on most odd lots it would, but on our particular one, which is five sided, it's not equitable and that's all that we're asking - to be treated fairly. MR. JOHN SILLIMAN: One other thing - right befqre the meeting I was told that the City engineer's department had figured out another way that this might possibly be considered. I don't know if you were going to address that or not. I would hope that you would. 3