Minutes - 19850826 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

ooo~o~ intervening vegetation, but that Pis. Laura Feather's 40 acres was entirely impacted and that the value could not be added back, to the property once sv severely damaged. Rizer asked Craig if in his professional opinion the proposed screening and runoff control facilities would further devalue the property. Craig responded that the property was already devalued when the Chandler property was stripped of vegetation adding that the industrial use o£ the property had damaged the Rhine property. Rizer repeated his question noting that Craig had not responded to the question posed. Craig responded that the screening will help, citing the blue green area on the map. Kizer again asked if in Craig's professional opinion the proposed runoff control facilities would further devalue the property. Craig responded that in his appraisal comment he had not concerned himself with the runoff question. He noted his concern was with the aesthetics of the possible pond sites. Rizer asked if the proposed screening is an improvement. Craig responded yes. Commissioner Lloyd asked if Craig addressed the value of the property before and after development in his appraisal comment letter. Craig responded yes. Commissioner Lloyd asked whose property was devalued $30,000.OD. Craig responded that the heaviest damage was to Sally Feather's property as potential building sites look down a ravine into the Chandler site. Commissioner Lloyd asked if she was entirely affected by the $30,D00.00. Craig responded that the topography allowed for no space and screening between the lake and the road. Commissioner Lloyd asked how much land Ms. Feather had. Craig responded that she has 40.93 acres of land which includes the right-of-way and pond. Commissioner Aiarshall inquired what happens to the `acid ponder built and constructed without permission. Smith responded that the ponds cannot be ;;j:'_i''rrfi,'. I";~,.~s"%d used until approval is obtained. Commissioner Willhoit inquired if ponds can be put in othezv~ise. Smith responded that the ponds cannot be used except as permitted, but that property can generally be cleared and ponds constructed without regulation. Commissioner Willhoit inquired if most of the devaluation was due to the denuding of the property as opposed to the construction of the ponds. He further inquired if there would be devaluation if screening was installed. Craig responded that the industrial zoning devalues the property. Commissioner Lloyd asked if Craig was referring to the 1.41 acres proposed or the entire plant. Craig responded that the 1.41 was the only part ' he took into consideration. Commissioner Lloyd cited Harder's letter and Craig responded he took exception to Harder as an appraiser. Gordon asked Gledhill how much weight could be given to Hander's letter. Gledhill responded that the letter was introduced for the truth of its and was, therefore, hearsay evidence. It is admissible so long as there is no objection and that the weight attributed to the letter is the choice of the Board members. Commissioner Lloyd inquired if Mr. Harder exists. Craig responded that he is a licensed contractor. Robert E. Rhine questioned if approval should be given by the Board after the fact. He asked what Mr. Chandler would have done if the land had not