My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
09-10-1984 Council Minutes
Orono
>
City Council
>
Minutes
>
Historical
>
1980-1989
>
1984
>
09-10-1984 Council Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/24/2015 1:43:34 PM
Creation date
4/24/2015 1:43:32 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
20
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING HELD SEPTEMBER 10, 1984 . PAGE 4 <br /> #820 LONIE FISR the value of Fisk ' s development is consistent or in <br /> excess of the general value of the neighborhood. <br /> Hoffman stated that Emond has estimated the current <br /> value of the land as nominal . Hoffman stated that if <br /> the variance was granted, the property would have an <br /> undeveloped value of approximately $12 , 000 . Hoffman <br /> stated if a house was constructed on the property, the <br /> value of the land would be $17 , 000 . Hoffman stated <br /> that the land is currently taxed at $500 a year. <br /> Hoff�an stated that other parcels that are taxed $500 a <br /> year usually are valued at $76 , 000 after construction <br /> of a home. <br /> Lawrence Emond stated that he has taken 10 sales in the <br /> Orono area. Emond stated that the sales ranged from <br /> $75-95 , 000 . Emond stated that the real estate tax <br /> (homesteaded taxes on existing property) on $75 , 000 <br /> sale is $614 . Emond stated that on other sales <br /> rangingfrom $85-88 , 500the average tax was $1 , 047 . 75 . <br /> City Attorney Malkerson stated that the Supreme Court <br /> � of rlinnesota has ruled that the Council cannot vote for <br /> or against any variance application based upon what <br /> neighbors want or don ' t want. Malkerson stated that <br /> isnotrelevant. Malkerson statedwhat is relevant, <br /> however, are the concerns of the neighbors as they <br /> relate to the health, safety and welfare. Malkerson <br /> stated that the health, safety and welfare concerns <br /> are proveable concerns within the courts , not just <br /> mere statements that the neighbors think a variance <br /> will result in the dimunition of land value, or that a <br /> variance will result in over crowding of the <br /> neighborhood, or a variance may cause traffic <br /> probiems . Malkerson stated that it is important to <br /> remember that the court has reviewed a lot of variance <br /> cases and have said, it is not whether people want the <br /> variance or not, it is , what is the basis for any <br /> testimony; is there any basis in fact, which facts <br /> support legal reasons for denial or approval. <br /> Don Meyer of 485 Park Avenue stated it is not a matter of <br /> what the neighbors want, but that the neighbors want <br /> the ordinances upheld. Meyer stated that he moved <br /> into the area assuming that this is a one acre zone. <br /> Meyer reminded the Council that this land was tax <br /> forfeit and that he didn ' t think that anyone would let <br /> a perfectly buildable lot go tax forfeit without <br /> selling it for a profit. Meyer stated that he would <br /> just like to keep his neighborhood the spacious way it <br /> was when he moved in there. <br /> Phil Bradley of 4075 Oak Street stated that at the <br /> beginning of this application, the applicant for the <br /> variance is not the registered owner of the property. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.