How to handle this

We back up to a gravel quarry that just opened up. Under local and state law, they have to keep the berm that the dredging is behind at no less than 300 feet from our lot lines. The company wants to bring it to

150 feet (that area alone across the entire length of the addition is supposed to be worth >$2 million). In return for our not stopping it, they are talking about splitting the difference and giving (deeding) the adjacent homeowners 75 feet from current lot lines. The city has already laid claim to the lake that will be generated and 75 along the shore to use as reservior for the water company. Is this going to be taxed? Is there away around the tax, like saying it is compensation for reduced property values related to the nuisance of the quarry for the 10-15 year life expectance? Any other suggestions?
Reply to
Kurt Ullman
Loading thread data ...

Kurt Ullman wrote: ...

Get the affected group together and hire a lawyer????

Reply to
dpb

Good idea; one experienced in land use law.

It is highly unlikely that the quarry operator and the adjacent land owners can do this deal without city approval. Set backs from property lines for a variety of uses are set by local or state law. What the OP describes is the quarry being 75 feet from the new property line instead of the 300 feet required set back. That's not likely to fly before my planning commission.

Reply to
Bill Brown

I am not sure why we would want to. This is going in and the only question is how far back from the lotline. The new setback was negotiated by us more to control what did (or more specifically did NOT) go in back there after the mining was over.

Reply to
Kurt Ullman

Everything is in place, including city okay. I am just wanting to know about the tax implications. Actually the quarry will be 150 feet from the line, we get 75 feet, the city gets 75 feet so nobody can spray pesticides, etc., since they are going to (eventually) be using the lake that results from the quarry for a reservior for the city.

Reply to
Kurt Ullman

If you have reduced property values, and you certainly would, what would be taxed? I have to think you are misunderstanding this; without bribes what you describe isn't going to happen.

Reply to
jack

OP is getting 75' of land. Is the value of that land taxable income?

(I'd insist on a legal opinion from a qualified attorney that it isn't, and/or a contract providing compensation for the taxes owed if it turns out to be.)

Seth

Reply to
Seth

Thanks. That is the kind of advice I was looking for even if the only definitive statement is that I need to talk to a lawyer to get a defnitive statement.

Kurt

Reply to
Kurt Ullman

I was wondering if when the new land is deeded to us, there would be income tax concerns. I realize some changes in the property tax, I was just wondering what the other tax implications might be (if there are any).

Nah. The local Board of Zoning Appeals okayed the changes, AFTER we came to an agreement with the company. Until then the BZA said they were quite happy with the status quo and wouldn't reopen the case until/unless there was some kind of request from the adjacent property owners. Basically we wanted to make sure there wasn't enough land back there to build on, which deeding the extra to us accomplishes.

Reply to
Kurt Ullman

I'd think structuring that agreement in the most advantageous way would be at least one reason as well as simply having somebody on your payroll thru the process. I've never known the entities in charge of the quarry operations or similar to be particularly concerned over the rights or benefits to the parties other than themselves.

The tax implications would be at least dependent if not controlled largely on the structure of that agreement it would seem. Not to mention, of course, the question of who is determining the value previously alluded to and what will be future value of having near-lakefront property, perhaps, etc., etc., ...

Of course, if it is really true that State law mandates a 300-ft setback, it certainly isn't clear how a local City/homeowners group and the regulated entity can simply set that aside, either. Not to mention there's probably applicable EPA and maybe even Corps of Engineers regulations coming into play w/ since there apparently is ground water involved.

Seems like worrying about the taxes (while granted is potentially of some value in considering) is premature yet from the data presented...and certainly don't see how anybody could venture much w/o much more detailed information. Of course, there could (and probably is) much more to the story that we're not privy to.

Reply to
dpb

BeanSmart website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.