Laserfiche WebLink
Thomas J. Barren, Hsq. <br />April 11. 1995 <br />Pige Four <br />one P.I.D. number for txx purposes. This was done as an administrative benefit so the tax <br />department would cnly need to send cut one tax statemc.m for all propertx' owmed instead of _ <br />multiple statements. Dy no means was dtis intcnccd to change each lots designatmn as a ’lot oi <br />record" or "buildaole lot". Proof of this lies in how each lot :s considered by the Tax Assessor. <br />Each Lot IS listed as a separate buildable lot and is :a.\ed according to its value as a "buildable" <br />Lot. VlTien they are combined, l.here is no change in ta.x consequences. <br />The County .Assessors office supports my claim that its practice of billing tour individually <br />platted lots on one ta.x state.ment. since 1967, ha.s no *cgal cttcct on the lots designation as a <br />"buildable lor. No formal petition or procedure was involved in the four lots being combined <br />and taxed together on one billing statement. <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 of a misinterpretation and application of the Subdivision <br />Ordinance. I believe you will agree ttu« the proper requirements governing my request to bin d <br />are not found in the Municipal Subdivision Ordinance. Chapter 11, but rather m the Municip^ <br />Zoning Ordinance. Chapter 10. I hope my analysis has been hclpftil for your con.sidcration of <br />this situation. We would welcome an opportunity for lurther discussion to expedite this process <br />of securing a building permit for Lot 1. <br />CGC/tkf