Laserfiche WebLink
vl <br />MINUTES OF THE <br />CONTINUED ORONO BOARD OF APPEAL AND EQUALIZATION <br />MoMlay, May 9,2005 <br />6:30 o ’clock p.ni. <br />&idoon reiterated the Council denie<‘ a building permit a while ago for the adjoining lot. Erickson <br />commented at some point in the future the larger lot will be worth more but that he has no intention to sell <br />at this point in time. <br />Peterson inquired whether that lot woi Id be considered substandard. <br />Moorse stated the property owner woi Id not be able to divide it into a lot that would be very substandard. <br />Moorse indicated yean ago the Council determined that the property should not be divided into two <br />60*foot lots. <br />Erickson stated both lots were liste J on one tax statement for the convenience of the city back in the <br />1940s. <br />Saasevere inquired whether the Assessor ’s Office takes into account the fact that sometimes people pay <br />too much for a particular piece of property, which would artificially raise the values in the area. <br />Davy stated the Assessor ’s Office on each sale reviews the CRV, the MLS information, and the length of <br />time that the particular property remains on the market. Davy indicated it is very rare where he feels that <br />someone hu overpaid for a piece of property, and noted that there are foree or four properties that have <br />sold in diis area and have set the range for lakeshore lots in the neighborhood. <br />Peterson stated the Council should consider sending this matter forward to the county. <br />Murphy stated the bottom line is that this lot is approximately 120 feet wide and that it has to be assessed <br />as a larger lot. <br />Erickson inquired what would happen if they were listed on separate tax statements. <br />Murphy noted that is not the situation in this particular case and that the City has to look at it as one <br />parcel. <br />Davy stated in his opinion the two lots, if taken individually, would probably be valued higher than if <br />they were valued as one lot. <br />Peterson concurred that the Council must look at this property as consisting of 12S feet of lakesho-e. <br />Murphy suggested that a detailed history concerning the two lots be compiled, noting that if they are <br />considered as two separate lots, the value may be increased. <br />Erickson stated if they are considered as two separate lots, he should be allowed to construct a house on <br />the adjoining vacant lot <br />Davy stated Erickson would need to contact Heimepin County and request to be put on the agenda if he <br />wishes to appeal the CouiKil ’s decision. <br />PAGE 3