10/01/2012 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

family home sites are not terribly comparable. Such outlots are jointly owned whether directly or through a homeowners association by those who use it. It is essentially a servient parcel that benefits only those owners. As a dead -end private right -of -way, it is of no value to the general public and would never be sold to anyone else. Consequently, the value derived by using wooded, single family home sites as comparables is likely inflated. Second, the HOA's damage number is calculated using the entire length and width of Outlot A. The cartway sought, however, is the road width (which happens to be two rods wide — the cartway minimum) and just enough length to get to the point of entry for the subject property. This amounts to 16,121 square feet, or only 12.28% of the total. Staff is unaware of any legitimate justifications for establishing a cartway wider or longer than Petitioner requested. Third, the appraisal calculated the land at sale value. While that approach is commonly used, for example, when more frontage is acquired from a property owner to widen a street or land is acquired to build a new street as part of a neighboring development project, it may not make sense when establishing a cartway over an existing road. Unlike in the typical situation, this land is already expressly dedicated for, and is used as, a roadway. In fact, that is the reason Outlot A was created in the first place. The land is therefore not being connected in the same manner as in a typical road project. The use is not changing at all; it was a road before and still will be if a cartway is established. What is being created, in essence, is a license to access a portion of a private road without any of the restrictions that can accompany a license. This is arguably a lesser impact to the existing rights of the HOA and, consequently, it gives rise to lesser damages than the typical creation of a new right -of -way easement. Thus, even if one only looks at the 16,121 square feet sought by Petitioner, the full sale value of $.50 per square foot (or whatever it ought to be) may be overstated. It is not as if the HOA will lose its use of the road. Rather, they will simply have to share it with another person and his guests. There is a value to that loss of privacy, but it may be less than the full sale value of $.50 per square foot. Improvements The HOA appraiser valued the roadway and bridge at $519,080. The Petitioner only seeks access across the bridge to his property. Adding the bridge value ($273,700) to 12.28% of the roadway, lighting and signage value ($30,133) equals $303,833. This is the estimated total value. As discussed above, these improvements are not being taken in total for this cartway. Rather, the usage of the existing road will simply broaden from the five HOA members to those five plus Petitioner and his guests. It is illogical to assign as damages the total current value of the improvements when the HOA will continue to utilize the improvements in essentially the same manner as before, with the only difference arising out of Petitioner's occasional use. Petitioner is not "taking" the improvements and converting them to his exclusive use. He is simply gaining a legal right to use the existing improvements. That usage is not likely to have a significant impact on the depreciated value of the bridge and road. 4