Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 20 of 20

Thread: Permits, we don’t need no stinking permits

  1. #16
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    8,922
    Marrano talked about assessment models and how he could override the model here with contiguous property involved. He could merge the properties and just assess the total property at $3,000 but that would create an inequity because people that have such deep lots are paying much more in taxes.

    The homeowners only paid $3,000 for the land. But if you combine the properties you are looking at a lot that is 75’ by over 350’ and that increases the value of the property significantly as the purchased lot is no longer rural assessed. It was asked why the property owners shouldn’t go the combined route and pay fair market value on the property like everyone else if they want to use the land.

    That’s the crux of the problem, namely, they purchased the land for $3,000, don’t want to combine the pieces of property so they can continue paying taxes on $3,000, but want to use the land as primary residence property but avoid paying more in taxes by combining the properties.

    It was recommended that the Williamsburg Lane homeowners first apply for a variance and see what the ZBA tells them. Option #2 would be to merge the parcels - which will increase their assessed value. It was estimated that in today’s market the front parcel is valued at $35,000 and the back (rural) at $3,000. Combined that lot would be valued around $57,000 according to the assessor’s model. It was suggested the homeowners have their land appraised.

    If the homeowners don’t get a variance or decide against merging the properties they face the possibility of having to move their sheds. They have already been cited by the town.

    The homeowners initially purchased the land to prevent development from taking place behind them. They planted grass and improved the property. According to town code they can use the land but they can’t build on it a long as it is classified rural property.

    Some may say it’s their property and they should be able to build on it. They can if they merge the land with their primary residence land. Otherwise, is this fair for others with deep lots and higher assessments?

  2. #17
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    20
    I'm not clear on how permitted sheds get built in incorrect or unallowed locations. In 2002 when I went to the building department for a shed permit I had to submit a survey with shed rendered on the property - with measurements labeled, that conform to building dept specifications. Then, when the permit was issued there were inspections both prior to build (stake-out) and post-build. Not sure what has changed but the process seemed to address and avoid all the issues being raised here - if a permit was issued prior to shed being built. If the Building Dept enforced the rules, requiring the homeowner to provide required materials, BD checked the property classification and did the inspections, there wouldn't be a shed on wrong property or location on property unless the homeowner illegally built it without a permit.

  3. #18
    Member gorja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lancaster, NY
    Posts
    13,150
    Originally posted by Lee Chowaniec:
    The homeowners initially purchased the land to prevent development from taking place behind them. They planted grass and improved the property. According to town code they can use the land but they can’t build on it a long as it is classified rural property.

    Some may say it’s their property and they should be able to build on it. They can if they merge the land with their primary residence land.
    Otherwise, is this fair for others with deep lots and higher assessments?
    IMHO, erecting a shed or other structure on these rear lots should be allowed by variance. It's not like it is a side yard.





    It was an excellent move by those homeowners purchasing that land before it turned into another development.

    Georgia L Schlager

  4. #19
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    8,922
    Quote Originally Posted by gorja View Post
    IMHO, erecting a shed or other structure on these rear lots should be allowed by variance. It's not like it is a side yard.





    It was an excellent move by those homeowners purchasing that land before it turned into another development.
    I tend to agree with you Gorga and the ZBA is the first place to go to. As all neighors express a common purpose and there should should be no objection coming from them to the granting of a variance, the only thing I see standing in the way is the size of he variance sought and purpose for.

  5. #20
    Member gorja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lancaster, NY
    Posts
    13,150
    As long as they're not storing piggie manure, I don't think they will have a problem.

    Georgia L Schlager

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Sorry, but we just don’t have the money
    By gorja in forum Village of Lancaster and Town of Lancaster Politics
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: July 23rd, 2010, 11:15 AM
  2. Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, Don’t Hold Your Breath
    By steven in forum USA Veterans issues and Wars in the Mid East
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: November 2nd, 2009, 02:30 PM
  3. (Jake Turcotte) Obama: You don’t endorse me? You’re off the plane!
    By leftWNYbecauseofBS in forum USA Politics and Our Economy - President Joe Biden
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: November 3rd, 2008, 02:27 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •