Laserfiche WebLink
lir;:�� & P�.nvnc:.�x <br />ICichard Meyers, Esq. <br />July 19, 1978 <br />Page Ytuo <br />�'�k <br />Our client objects strenuougly to the dedication of any <br />land foi park or other public purposes or to the payment of any . <br />nwneys as a substitute for land in connection with the platting of . <br />Northcrest Addition. It is submitted that in the case of many <br />subdivisions, such requirement is a necessary and reasonable one . <br />but that is not true in the instant case for the following reasona: <br />1. The replatting of Pinecrest Addition as Northcrest <br />Addition originaCed with the city. The replatting was not requested <br />by our client and is not of financial benefit [o it but is a.detri- <br />ment as pointed out below. , <br />2. The statute permits only a"reasona!�le portion" of • <br />the pronosed subdivision to be dedicated (or payment of "an equi- . <br />valent amount in cash"). In the instant situation, 107, of the <br />fair market value of the subject land is not reasonable. It is ... <br />contended that the proposed payment of $53,000 is excessive and <br />confiscatory. <br />3. The proposed replatting required by the city has <br />caused our client to pay a sum in excess of $27,000 of out-of- <br />pocket expenses for a feasibility study and fees of urban planners, <br />surveyors and engineers over the period 1976-78. Zn addition, our <br />client has been delayed more than one year in its development plan <br />which has resulted in loss of profit, interest expense of approxi- <br />mately $56,000, and real property taxes of approximately $20;000. <br />A reasonable estimate of the out-of-pocket costs to Pinecrest <br />Properties resulting from the replatting is the sum of 100,000. <br />Attached hereto and;,marked EXHIR7T � i.:s a listina nf ��r.���wPS.paid <br />an�l ehe purpose th�'zeof in etie qeai"s I976-78. <br />Mr. Beim has discussed this matter with Steve Rose, the <br />city planner for the city,and Mr. Achen, the city manager, as well <br />as the city planning commission. All of such persons have been <br />advised that the suggested cash payment is considered to be exces- <br />aive artd unreasonable in the circumstances nnd our client objects <br />to such payment and will resort to litigation to avoid such pay-: � <br />ment, if neceasary. To assist in obtaining approval of the plat <br />� <br />