Laserfiche WebLink
Thomas J. Bx'rer.. Eiq. <br />April 11. 1095 <br />Paie Four <br />one P.I.D. number for tn.x purposes. This was done as an administrative benefit so the tax <br />department would cnlv need to send out one tax statement lor all propertx owned instead ot <br />multiple statements. Dy no means w'as this intended to change each lots designation as a lot of <br />record- or ■‘buildable lot". Proof of this lies in how each lot is considered by ^he Tax Assessor. <br />Each Lot is listed as a separate buiIJable lot and is taxed according to its value as a "buildahle- <br />Lot, V^Tien they are combined, there is no change in ta.\ consequences. <br />Thc County Assessors office supports my claim that its practice of billing four individually <br />platted lots on one txx statement, since 1967, has no legal crtect on the lots designation as a <br />"buildable lot". No formal petition or procedure was involved in the four lots being combine d <br />and taxed together on one billing statement. " ^ ^ ^ TrrzL ^ <br />Finally, an issue of equity arises since there surely was never any intent to lose my "lot of ' <br />record" designation, which essentially amounts to my future interest to build. <br />It appears our impasse is the result ot a misinterpretation and application ot the Subdivision <br />Ordinance. I believe you will agree that the proper requirements governing my request to build <br />are not found in the Municipal Subdivision Ordinance, Chapter 11, but rather in the Municipal <br />Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 10. I hope my analysis has been helpful for your con.sideration of <br />this situation. We would welcome an opportiuuty for lurther discussion to expedite this process <br />of securing a building pemiit for Lot 1. <br />CGC/tkf <br />L