Laserfiche WebLink
Thomas J. BafTfil. Hsc|. <br />April 11. 1995 <br />Page Four <br />one P.I.D. number for tax purposes. This %vas done as an administrative benctit so the xx\ ^ <br />department ^vouid cnlv need to send out one tax - tatemc.-tt for all property our.ed instead or <br />multiple statements. By no means was this mtenoed to change each lots designation as a *ot of <br />record" or "buildable lot". Proof of this lies in how each lot is consuered b> the Txx A.^e^.c . <br />Each Lot is listed as a sepx-ate buildable lot and is txxed according to its value as a buildable ^ <br />Lot. WTicn they are combined, there is no change in ta.x ccnset^uences. <br />The Coumv Assessors oftice supports ray claim that ;ts practice of billing four individually <br />platted lots'on one tav stateraem, since l')67, has no legal citect on the lots designation as a <br />"buildable lot". No formal petition or procedure was involved in the four lots being combine <br />and taxed together on one billing statement. <br />Finally, an issue of equit>' arises since there surely uas 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 />Ordimince I believe vou will agree that the proper requirements governing my request to build <br />are not found in the Municip.al Subdivision Ordinance. Chapter 11, but rather in the Municipal <br />Zoning Ordinance. Chapter 10. I hope my analysis has been hclphii for your con.sideration ot <br />this situation. We would welcome an opporfiuiity for further discussion to expedite this process <br />of iecuruig a building permit for Lot I <br />CGCtkf