10-29-1984 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

09 Vs. Jeanne Mabunth Octobe 17, 1984 Page F which he complains disappears with the alternative of selling the lots to an adiacent property owner. In discussing just this set of circumstances, some com- men-_ers have noted that "in such a situation the de%;--loper should be required (by the ordinance, the zoning board, or a court) to try to sell this parcel at a reasonable price to one, or preferably to both of his neighbors." (Footnotes omitted.) Williams, American Land Planning Law, 541.02 at 146 (1974). The applicant's own appraiser has indicated that the value of this parcel ranges from $1,000 in its present condition, to $12,000 if a variance is granted and a well and sewer connection are added, and $17,000 after a house is built. It seem^ fair to say that the present market value of that parcel is highly speculative, ranging somewhere between $1,00C and $12,000. Since at the present time no decision has been made with regard to the variance, it is obvious that the price cannot be deter- mined with any precision. Mr. Meyer has indicated a willingners to purchase the property for the price the applicant's appraiser has indicated as its value with a variance, minus allowance foi the fact that there is no well and that a sewer connection would need to be made. Mr. Fisk has insisted upon, a purchase price of $17,000, which is the value given by his app-aiser to the lot after a home has teen built. While the details of this matter should properly be left to the parties to nego- tiate, it seems obv-1ous that the applicant does have an alternative which would provide him with �, reasonable return on his investments. He cannot be heard to say, therefore, that the denial of the variance by the Council would deprive him of all use of the property. Courts have decided the issue of the value of such properties differently. In Cowen, the New `fork Court said ". . . in calculating whether financial hardship would be inflicted by adherence to the zoning standard, inquiry should properly focus upon the value of the parcel as presently zoned, rather than upon the value the parcel would have if the variance were granted." Cowen at 309. The Illinois Court in Goslin had a slightly different formula but one which was still based on equity. In that instance, where the applicant indicated that he had an offer equal to tho amount he had invested in the property but was insisting upon a sale price approximately double that amount, the Court found that