Laserfiche WebLink
4 <br />CONTINUED ORONO BOARD 4 <br />Monday, <br />6:30 o' <br />Erickson reiterated the Council denied a building <br />commented at some point in the future the larger <br />at this point in time. <br />Peterson inquired whether that lot would be <br />OF THE <br />APPEAL AND EQUALIZATION <br />iy 9, 2005 <br />ck p.m. <br />t a while ago for the adjoining lot. Erickson <br />.1 be worth more but that he has no intention to sell <br />substandard. <br />Moorse stated the property owner would not be able'to divide it into a lot that would be very substandard. <br />Moorse indicated years ago the Council determined that the property should not be divided into two <br />60 -foot lots. <br />Erickson stated both lots were listed on one tax <br />1940s. <br />Sansevere inquired whether the Assessor's Office <br />too much for a particular piece of property, which <br />for the convenience of the city back in the <br />into account the fact that sometimes people pay <br />i artificially raise the values in the area. <br />Davy stated the Assessor's Office on each sale reviews the CRV, the MLS information, and the length of <br />time that the particular property remains on the market. Davy indicated it is very rare where he feels that <br />someone has overpaid for a piece of property, and noted that there are three or four properties that have <br />sold in this area and have set the range for lakeshore lots in the neighborhood. <br />is Peterson stated the Council should consider <br />Murphy stated the bottom line is that this lot is <br />as a larger lot. <br />Erickson inquired what would happen if they were <br />Murphy noted that is not the situation in this <br />parcel. <br />Davy stated in his opinion the two lots, if taken <br />they were valued as one lot. <br />this matter forward to the county. <br />120 feet wide and that it has to be assessed <br />on separate tax statements. <br />case and that the City has to look at it as one <br />, would probably be valued higher than if <br />Peterson concurred that the Council must look at this property as consisting of 125 feet of lakeshore. <br />Murphy suggested that a detailed history concerning the two lots be compiled, noting that if they are <br />considered as two separate lots, the value may be increased. <br />Erickson stated if they are considered as two <br />the adjoining vacant lot. <br />Davy stated Erickson would need to contact <br />wishes to appeal the Council's decision. <br />to lots, he should be allowed to construct a house on <br />:pin County and request to be put on the agenda if he <br />PAGE 3 <br />