Laserfiche WebLink
Corilcn G. Cloutier. Esq. <br />AprU 20. 1995 <br />Page -2- <br />disagreement is whether or not Lot 1 is an existing lot of record. It is the City’s position that <br />it is not, since the effect of combination (on any of the other lots combined) has been to <br />create one large lot where several previously existed. It seems likely that the assessor must <br />hold that view as well, since I suspect that the tax impact of holding three lots, two of which <br />are not homesteaded, would be different from holding only one homesteaded lot <br />Further, the City’s previous authorization of a boathouse on the combined property <br />would be inconsistent with its zoning regulations as to accessory structures if the former lots <br />were treated as individual parcels for zoning purposes. Indeed, that is the meaning of the <br />language "combined for tax purposes" in Sec. 11.03(2)(66)(a)(2). The language assumes that <br />simple subdivision will be allowed if the combination had only the effect of combining for <br />tax purposes, and not the further and complicating effect of subsequent development which <br />relied for zoning compliance on the area and characteristics of the combined parcel as a <br />single lot <br />Please let me know if you have further questions. <br />0 <br />cc:ann? Mabusth <br />082/220794SI 4/20/93