Laserfiche WebLink
-2- <br />as would appear from the half section sheet but the difference in encroachment <br />is not great. Rather than focusing on the differences between the detailed <br />road purposes. <br />The Partridges have owned and lived on the property for over forty-one years <br />and throughout that time Spring Hill Road has existed basically as it now exists. <br />There has never been any public use of the additional right of way; to the <br />contrary, the Partridges have used the property as if it was theirs, without <br />restrictions, all the way up to the ditch which appears to delineate the limits <br />of Spring Hill Road as used. Now that the road is no longer a County Highway the <br />need for the additional right of way is even less apparent. Whatever right of <br />way is not needed should, in all fairness, be released to the Partridges so <br />that they can legally make the same use of as much of their property as would be <br />the case for most similar properties. Indeed, I have verified with the City <br />Assessor that the subject property has been treated for assessment purposes as <br />comparable to other 4-5 acre parcels but the existence of the additional forty <br />feet of road right of way in this case makes approximately .7 to .8 acres of the <br />parcel unusable. This reduction makes the subject property anything but comparable <br />to similar 4-5 acre parcels since there is no potential of creating two separate <br />lots from the property. <br />It was not . .til recently that the Partridges became aware of the impact on <br />their property created by this additional right of way. They are considering <br />selling their property and they requested my assistance and advice in that process, <br />partly because of my background but equally because I am their nephew and I lived <br />with them on the property for several years. My Initial investigation of the <br />title to the property disclosed the easement and further investigation resulted <br />in an understanding of the impact created by the additional forty feet of right <br />of way. Specifically, the net buildable area of the entire parcel is slightly <br />under 4.0 acres, while it would be substantially an excess of 4.0 acres if the <br />extra right of way were partially or totally vacated. The Partridges are not <br />going to subdivide the parcel, and we all hope that it is never subdivided, but <br />the reality of the matter is that a prudent seller would take into consideration <br />the subdivision potential when determining a sales price. A s'lmilarily prudent <br />buyer would obviously do the same. <br />I wish to emphasize that we are not requesting special City action solely to <br />enhance the value of the Partridges' property at the expense of the City or others; <br />rather, we feel the request is entirely appropriate in light of the physical <br />characteristics of the property and the apparent lack of need to use the excess <br />right of way for highway purposes. The Partridges have lived on the property for <br />over forty-one years and may very well have been paying taxes on the ^ ® <br />entire parcel was unencumbered except for the thirty-three feet normally affected <br />by road right of way. In addition, the timing of this request might not be the <br />best in light of the surrounding development and in light of their potential sale <br />of the property, but I do not believe the result should be any different than if <br />this request had been made years ago when County Read No. 6 was first relocated to