Laserfiche WebLink
April 20. 1993 <br />The Orono Board of Review <br />Gentlemen: <br />My name Is Robert Luesse. I live at 3249 Casco Circle. Mv property I.D. No. Is <br />20-117-23-43 0008. <br />I am here to request your review of the 1993 Estimated Market Value (EMV) of my <br />lakeshore lot where I have lived for 37 years. Over tlie last four years the EMV for <br />my lot. as established by the Orono appraiser, has increased 57%. During tliat <br />period, inflation has only increased 18.2%. That's more tlian 3 times tlie rate of <br />inflation. During that time. 1 have made no Improvements. <br />If the 1993 proposed EMV for my lot were approved it would result In an 80% <br />Increase In the EMV for my lot over the past 5 years. During the same 5 years, <br />inflation only increased 21.7%. The problem with an areawide percentage Increase <br />Is that It has a compounding effect on the EMV much beyond the real value of the <br />various lots It may be applied to. <br />I discussed this matter with the appraiser for Orono and he explained that in 1993 <br />there was no increase In value for the building. He said the proposed increase for <br />1993 Is entirely tfie value of the lakeshore lot. For comparison he provided me <br />with the EMV for the lots of my Immediate neighbors and the lot frontage at the <br />lakeshore. I have plotted those on the attached map for comparison. The first <br />number Is the EMV for the land only. The second number is the EMV per front <br />foot of lakeshore. <br />I asked the appraiser why mj lot. that has only 51 feet on the lake, should have <br />the highest EMV per front foot in this area. He responded that the basic v'alue is <br />for being on the lake, rather than the amount of lake frontage. 1 do not agree. <br />That may be true In some parts of the lake, but In Orono the size of the lot is veiy <br />Important. In a recent request for variance I was denied my r^uest to add a <br />bedroom to my very small house that only covers 892 square feet. In the Council <br />resolution their first finding was that my lot Is substandard. As such. I am <br />severely restricted on what I can build on this size lot in this zoning district. In <br />addition. I have a very steep hill to the lake with no usable land at the shoreline <br />and no beach. <br />Notwithstanding the fact that It Is the smallest lakefront, tlie proposed 1993 EMV <br />per front foot for my lot Is the highest along this whole stretch of lakeshore. The <br />1993 proposed EMV per front foot for my lot is nearly tu1ce the amount for those <br />lots that meet the minimum lot size for this zoning district such as property I.D. <br />numbers (31) and (50). In fact, there Is a great variation In the front foot value of <br />lots from neighbor to neighbor. I can understand variations in value of buildings, <br />because each house is dilferent In size and quality. I can’t understand the great <br />variation In front foot value of lots that are adjacent to one another on the same <br />lakeshore. And I particularly can t understand why the lot with the smallest <br />lakefront should get tlie highest front foot value. <br />I hc» cby request the Board of Review to approve an EMV for my lot that is no <br />greater per front foot than the average EMV per front foot of my neighbors.