<<The valuation of a property must be based upon its highest and best
use. In this case, renovating the existing structures is not the highest
and best use. Ideally, commercial use is its best use, but may not be
feasible because of government constraints. The next best use of the
property would be to tear down the existing structures and make it a small
estate property. The value is in the land, not the existing structures. In
the case that someone wanted to create such an estate, he/she would put
in the engineered sewage field, put up a privacy fence, and build a new
home and garage (probably 3,500 – 5,000 sq. ft.). Such a structure would
be more proportionate to the value of the land (generally, land is worth
20% of the overall property value).>>
use. In this case, renovating the existing structures is not the highest
and best use. Ideally, commercial use is its best use, but may not be
feasible because of government constraints. The next best use of the
property would be to tear down the existing structures and make it a small
estate property. The value is in the land, not the existing structures. In
the case that someone wanted to create such an estate, he/she would put
in the engineered sewage field, put up a privacy fence, and build a new
home and garage (probably 3,500 – 5,000 sq. ft.). Such a structure would
be more proportionate to the value of the land (generally, land is worth
20% of the overall property value).>>
This page is incomplete and still
being worked on...
being worked on...
Last revised 01-26-2012
All blue highlighted text links to
additional notes and information
All blue highlighted text links to
additional notes and information
"Just because something is legal,
doesn't mean it's right..."
doesn't mean it's right..."
It's difficult to know what kind of comment to make on this "analysis" of what
should be done with 1960 since it utterly ignores all realities of zoning, soil
conditions, code requirements, contingencies involved in permitting, market
conditions and simplest of all, location, location, location.
No one who has the financing to build in the Ann Arbor area a "small estate
property" as Doug Gale proposes would even consider the land at 1960 S Maple for
the most obvious reason (among others) to anyone visiting the property: it is
immediately adjacent to I-94 and Scio-Church Rd, one a heavily traveled interstate
highway, the other a heavily traveled local arterial road.
Because of the traffic noise, when standing in the yard outside at 1960 people
cannot have a normal conversation unless standing within eight or ten feet of each
other. The traffic on both roads has to be expected to increase with time.
should be done with 1960 since it utterly ignores all realities of zoning, soil
conditions, code requirements, contingencies involved in permitting, market
conditions and simplest of all, location, location, location.
No one who has the financing to build in the Ann Arbor area a "small estate
property" as Doug Gale proposes would even consider the land at 1960 S Maple for
the most obvious reason (among others) to anyone visiting the property: it is
immediately adjacent to I-94 and Scio-Church Rd, one a heavily traveled interstate
highway, the other a heavily traveled local arterial road.
Because of the traffic noise, when standing in the yard outside at 1960 people
cannot have a normal conversation unless standing within eight or ten feet of each
other. The traffic on both roads has to be expected to increase with time.