1. Abatement/John Swartz - Laserfiche WebLink

INVESTIGATION OF ABATEMENT APPLICATION ABATEMENT NO. 4251 Following is a report on the investigation of the abatement application of: John & Mary Swartz Cass County Board of Commissioners and State Tax Commissioner: The applicants are asking that the valuation be reduced for 2003 on their residential property located at 4802 57th St N Harwood, ND. The property is located in the NE1I4 17-140-49 Reed Twp,just north of Fargo and West Fargo. They are asking that the valuation be reduced from $170,000 to $130,000. They state that the property was placed in the floodway by the City of Fargo and that no new construction is allowed. The Reed Twp. Board recommended that the valuation be reduced to $70,000. The 1,500 sq. ft. rambler w/finished bsmt was built in 1989 and was within Zone AH of the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM). The home has an attached double garage and a 40x80 pole bldg is also located on the 6.4 acre tract. The elevation of the improvements was certified at 895.96 ft' was floodproofed and the base flood elevation was listed at 894 feet (see Exhibits A, B, & C). Normally, properties listed in Zone AH require flood insurance for federal guaranteed loans. In this case, the property was built above the base flood elevation; therefore, it's my understanding that flood insurance was not a requirement at the time of construction. Subsequently, the property was sold to the Swartz's in 9/97 for $146,000. During the 1997 flood, the structures did not flood, although water was close to the top of the south embankment. After the years following the flood, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) remapped the area (see Exhibit D). It is my understanding that various local agencies provided input regarding the re-mapping of the area. Sometime during early 2003, the Swartz's applied for a building permit from the City of Fargo, as the property is located within the Fargo Extraterritorial Zoning Area of the city. They were denied a permit, as the new FIRM placed the property in the floodway of the floodplain Zone AE (see Exhibit E). It's my understanding that new structures or additions cannot be placed in the floodway. It would appear that when the FIRM was drawn, at least part of the Swartz property was inadvertently placed in the floodway (see Exhibit F). The Swartz' were informed that the property could most likely be removed from the floodway by applying for a Letter of Map Amendment (LaMA) or a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) to FEMA. They were informed that they would bear at least some of the cost (see Exhibit G). The homeowners, they feel that there is a loss in value to their property until the situation is rectified. They also feel that they should not have to bear the expense of having their property