HomeMy WebLinkAboutDoll_53000150090001_Memos,Correspondences, File Notes_otter Tail County Board of Appeals
Protest of Market Value
Parcel Number R53000150090001
Property Owners: Peter and Katrina Doll, Greg and Rose Mader
The grounds for our protest is that the estimated market value is incorrectly
based on 300’ of usable lakeshore and the incorrect increase in valuation
because of a conditional use for a cluster development.
The origin of our concern started when the assessment notice indicated a 2001
value of $48,900 and a 2002 value of $83,700. When an inquiry was made to
the Assessor’s Office, we were informed that Boedigheimer Lake, at the grade
for our lake property, was valued at $300 per front foot for the first 100’, the next
50’ was value at 2/3 of the first 100’, the excess frontage was valued at 7% of the
first 100’ and was valued as excess land. The formula is predicated that the first
100’ has the majority of the value.
A depth factor of 25% was added for the 2002 valuation. The Assessor’s Office
calculated the depth of this lot to be 400’. It was the depth factor that we
believed overstated the value of this parcel. This parcel has a small creek that
runs through the middle of the property. This creek makes it physically
impossible to use the depth and most of the lakeshore frontage. We were also
told that the maps in the Assessor’s Office were not sufficient to make this type of
determination and any adjustments to the depth factor would be up to Bob Moe.
Mr. Moe was mailed a copy of a survey map and asked to consider the depth
portion of his formula and to discuss his thoughts with Peter at the next monthly
Regional Assessors’meeting.
The result of this informal request, to have Mr. Moe check his formula, was that
the property was presented to the Local Board of Review on April 25,2002 and
the value was increased by an additional $14,600. We did not request that the
issue be presented to the Board. In addition, we were not informed that the issue
was presented, until an email was sent to Peter on May 29, 2002. The email
indicated that the formula setting the value was adjusted from 150’ of usable
lakeshore to 300’ and the depth was taken from 400’ to 102’ of useable lake
depth. After Peter visited with Mr. Moe, it was determined that the 300’ was
based on the fact that a conditional use allowed three dwellings on this parcel.
Our first issue for the Board is simply to state that this matter was not handled
properly by Mr. Moe. In our opinion he acted underhandedly and punitively.
The second issue is to challenge the concept that the conditional use of the
cluster development increases market value. The highest and best use of the
property is developmental lakeshore. The conditional use / cluster development
that was obtained is a right that any property owner has by the current zoning
and the Shoreland Management Ordinances. Peter spoke to Bill Kalar and he
P^rJilT'i
IfiKtP Of 0 fff /r^LI
Pf^/2 (Z^e Pi^auLd~rs
fQ^ CM/dP
stated most lake lots are entitled to obtain a similar conditional use if the property
owner so desired. However, most property owners are not willing to gain the
increase in density at the cost of many offsetting additional land use restrictions.
The conditional use has both positive and negative impacts. An example of a
negative impact on our property is the increased set back of 50’ of green space.
The fact still remains that the conditional use is a use within fee simple
ownership. It is a use that is available to everyone on a lake in Otter Tail County.
It is not a variance that increases property rights, such as allowing an activity that
does not meet the current land use ordinances. For example, to allow building on
property that does not meet current set back requirements.
Land is to be valued as if vacant, per state statute. Improvements and buildings
are to be valued separately. Land is to be valued at fee simple ownership at its
highest and best use. Fee simple ownership is the ownership with all the legal
rights. The four elements used for determining the highest and best use are as
follows:
1. Possible use. What use is physically possible?
2. Permissible legal use. What use is permitted by zoning and deed
restrictions?
3. Feasible use. Which possible and permissible use produces a net
return to the owner?
4. Highest and best use. Among the feasible uses, which use will produce
the highest net return or the highest present worth?
Possible uses
Many of the possible uses of this property are not physically possible because of
the lot’s configuration. The north / south property line intersects with the lake at a
sharp angle. This is very restricting. The sideyard set back and the lakeshore set
back render a large portion of the lot unusable for primary buildings. The
property has a creek running through the middle. The creek has a 100’ set back
on both sides, in addition to the lakeshore set back. Bill Kalar indicated to Peter
that without a variance it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to
subdivide the property into two lots. The first 150’ lot would take nearly all of the
property that can be improved with a building. After the required 60’ for road
(note the roadway is to be outside all water set backs) there would be no space
that would be physically possible for a building. Please review the map to see
the set back requirements and that the additional road requirements would
eliminate any possible ability to subdivide.
Permissible legal uses
Shoreland ordinances allow single family development, as well as cluster
developments. A cluster development is allowed as a conditional use. It must be
understood that current zoning allows property owners the right to utilize cluster
developments. It should be noted that a cluster development is still subject to all
existing lakeshore regulations, as well as many additional land use regulations.
*■*
Feasible use
Developmental lakeshore in this area is typically a feasible use, as long as
compliance to lakeshore regulations do not negate property values.
Highest and best use
Considering the possible uses, the permissible legal uses and the feasible uses,
the highest and best use of the property is one single lakeshore developmental
lot.
Currently Otter Tail County uses a CAMA (Computer Aided Mass Appraisal)
system to value residential and lakeshore property. Equalization is achieved by
consistently applying formulas, using cost tables and using the computer to
generate estimated market values. In order to achieve equalization the size
factors of our property must be based on the highest and best use and calculated
similar to other properties on Boedigheimer Lake. According to the Assessor’s
Department, all parcels that are buildable have the first 100’ valued at their
graded value and the next 100’ are valued at 2/3 of the initial value. An example
of this is the Betlach property directly to the east of our property. The Betlach /
property contains two stick built dwellings. The first 100’ are valued at the full 2,2-^
rate, the second 100’ are valued at 2/3 and the last 20’ is valued at 1/3. Alsq
100% of the Betlach property is buildable.
In order to be equally assessed and recognize the physical restrictions caused by
lakeshore regulations, the proper dimension factors for our property should be as
follows:
1. 100’ at the full graded value.
2. 50’ at 2/3 of the graded value.
3. The remainder should be valued at the excess, nonbuildable
rate of 7% of the graded value.
4. The depth factor should be based on 250’ of lot depth, which is
the average depth of the lot up to the creek setback.
The current valuation is based on 300’ of lakeshore with 102’ of usable depth. If
the Board is willing to grant a variance stating that we do have 300’ of lakeshore
frontage with 102’ of buildable depth, we would accept formula used on the
Betlach property to calculate the current valuation. This would result in the
following factors:
1. 100’ at the full graded value.
2. 100’ at 2/3 of the graded value.
3. 100’ at 1/3 of the graded value.
4. The remainder at 7% of the graded value.
5. The depth factor based on 202’ of lot depth, which is 100’ of
lakeshore setback and 102’ of buildable depth.
II •\oo^cnLC ' /
<cl/2r<£/i - UA6/}^ f m\euTna.'i ,', ^T~
mmii ^ncL^oio
^ni-iCUL/^DOi^
f^e.oPiT(tr^ 3^LJr^O^R.l£S
/ID ,: ■ /P)!^. UT Dili '
- J/£!^ 0£M DT ^
if\)L£. CP/PP. i^nP) ~
D/ZCCK fP6t-jTn<^( C^<c/L Dc/)ce^ - I ^ { P^Th Siofs oi^ c:Riiip)
rr
'.■i;.»si
PUBLIC ACCESS
lAAC.t
<^ery7£r ,/'Ai,rc£/r
>
» £D\
k»
i'\Ai
iP-i>\y
Ay/’f r^ d.t/-/l£r a/’ ^rcA/ //\\CEL L y>
f'PARCEL G V<s
tAC.4.07AC.\)I\.X \
\il
3^P/ '^f/./S //*I>
WET
PARCEL M PARCEL F2.5! AC.
2.54 AC.I
/ A NDE
/(Ui£»
T &>~ /3.7LfiM M vt/nS\
" , \^°4,5?/i
I*
I
/>•
/'Z.*«
TitA. (LAtc.^( ./$ /f^.i. /$‘r
^ UT 5/2 £ ,s
<10 /7^^■)
y K'/
$t,c>fry^ Y’ H, nii ncAfsI/^ 0^'y m>
y.X\
s s
>■
' i-V?■_ -■»►■ ■
!?e>^ -(?PiKifesiiSfia,.,4‘ /
/w
>!,'> w
IH >x' ^1
>' A
hV ,‘.i?\v/.
r'.r,/■-.r*'\
yN'/
/’h
0-
^ •.:f^iiPUBLIC ACC^' \7 i^'inyr*t /.a". \\4 '/y>•' \i 'i______ lAAC.t
bV ■
/ ry■>' /y'.g3‘’/9'^^'‘^-\C•>'(>•,-i^7 <
k
i
5
y
PARCEL Hi^^\ S? uw<v$*
I^ ^SSumTS X 1^5
X 4.74 AC.±A y ,^/•«y
\ '
/.X'7 uy/t^S\\.(,J91
y'
' h^r'"'V ■•A'f'y\0 -y:
>
■^'-
/;■'\h-/o/\■■..V/> ✓>\\/1 7/ ■/o
X \ 4*^3-»»X?^0or=*-\I.'§(.•.. "*—-
\\%
0 •o»•^..-' lAsrr^\\in*’:;;'.V.-A
. ,. . . ,- .. . _. V ‘ fc l^V.-t“-.,,’'"‘l* ■- *^--‘^»'I ■i-^'i '- '*«»*■ >
p *V ,i"4\
'' t; •'•: ■;_, ,-1'1-j ■>" • i- rV,’' V
ft 'iha A1.V /•■ V"M‘-’'-’ft rf-;-,\\&•'^- \A ■■ys-'
X /.Xj '' ;t ^\> -Jc.. .i.
\■• ■;
\N A/z’^y.^4’j^/yAer^ z:.tr/74>' /^rce/ /V
\/^7^o<»>xs:»
s.PARCEL GPARCEL L f.
\X \ ^
XX
4.07AC.\\'Ss2.54 AC.^\v- \\«»N\
•Jk .
Ck V»x '
V'Ck « \
\ Ok «*k '
'' \s/‘'S'p'<gp"y.
Apyy.yff
v^X"
^ IV '4k
^ \ 1 IJJ
Ok
\/ 'V ,* •./I /*tiV/xl /r1WET~=d !y
1i
0£rJSlT^P£TtCA. OoUL €r /^L.
HjX^ <S£
L/ilU [Jl4h/tT
\oo\j\j>i\r
/V u*yfirs13.1
ca££\<,:/7 u*ftrs/
I 3Ly^/rsJT<e>TfiL
\sT T)M >
Pfl(lC£L ^ c f>ccwj*vs
S CAC$t<. f
3r.o riiciz.^
V^rnL
l£3 3^i rr^
3V^, 3^^ f‘T'^
j
)a. IS
2H0 ^ 3AS rr^
UhfiTS X /,^13 UAftTs/W
Tied V-PA/r
^^oJTieiz C4/9/<<)
5; ^
O.ol U*^ITS % A,O
'g’D^aat> ler^JuuiT
O. /V
0,0') UhfiTZ
O UhutS
O i/^trj
1ST Tied.
9iHo Tjc/l
3tzo Tie/i.O U**tTS
[ji^ut^irs i