Agenda - 09-30-1985 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

18 7 Chandler reviewed his decision to apply for a planned development versus a general rezoning as a means to "clear the air" and put into writing and on plans what he intended to do with the property. P.H. Craig, appraiser, reviewed his appraisal credentials and noted be had a long term familiarity with the property. He noted that he had observed the "acid pits" and the long section of stripped property. He indicated that there was an adverse impact on the property values of the Rhine property, property which by its use and the owners' actions is an asset to Hillsborough. Craig cited a map prepared to show on which parcel he was commenting. He noted that the area designated in blue was the property in question. He cited the topography of the Rhine property which has 1200' of road frontage with 400' immediately adjoining the Chandler property. The yellow area on the map indicated possible building sites. He maintained that the Rhine property had been damaged a minimum of $30,000.00. He continued that the bomeplace had some intervening vegetation,, but that Ms. Laura Feather's 40 acres was entirely impacted and that the value could not be added back to the property once so severely damaged. Kizer 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 of the property had damaged. the Rhine property. Kizer 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. Kiser- 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 be had not concerned himself with the runoff question. " - Be noted his concern was with the aesthetics of the possible pond sites. Kizer asked if the proposed screening is an inprovement. 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 $30,000.00. 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 $30,000.00. 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 Marshall inquired what happens to the "acid ponds" built and constructed without permission. Smith responded that the ponds cannot be used until approval is obtained. Commissioner Willhoit inquired if ponds can be put in otherwise. Smith responded that the ponds cannot be used except as permitted, but that property can 6 enerally 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 Harder's letter. Gledhill responded that the letter was introduced for the "truth of it" and