Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021_08_24 BOER MINUTES DocuSign Envelope ID:67AF45A6-6792-466B-A530-32D705D517AA MINUTES Board of Equalization and Review Date: August 24, 2021 Board Members Present: Hunter Beattie, Chair Barbara Levine,Regular Member Ryan Petrone,Alternate Member Staff Members Present:Nancy Freeman, Tax Administrator Roger Gunn,Real Property Appraisal Manager Chad Phillips,Deputy Tax Assessor Cyle Anderson,Appraiser Bill Hiltbold,Appraiser Jimmy Milliken,Appraiser Heidi Whetzel,Appraiser Vrinlli Flores,Administrative Assistant SCHEDULE: 9864376078 Kirk Allen Praster NOT APPEARING 9787386328 De Miguel Salem Properties LLC APPEARING 9788699110 Anne Pert De Pal APPEARING 9788246792 Bryan C. Kempter APPEARING 9779217534 Glenn J. Floyd NOT APPEARING 9798475877 Zachary Rike APPEARING 9788330454 Anthony Louis Pessino, Trustee APPEARING 9788487508 Samantha Cheek Swan APPEARING 9788612237 Emma G. Blass APPEARING 9788342110 Keith W. T. Burridge APPEARING 9788123710 Evan Dellon APPEARING 9788342830 Thomas P. Grasty III NOT APPERING 9788146016 Buer Sen FAILED TO APPEAR 9777800334 Boris Kantor FAILED TO APPEAR 9788333707 Daniel W. Copeland APPEARING 9840695158 Mark T. Eskew NOT APPEARING Chair Hunter Beattie called the meeting to order at 1:01 PM. DocuSign Envelope ID:67AF45A6-6792-466B-A530-32D705D517AA PRASTER PIN 9864376078 Kirk Allen Praster elected not to appear before the Board and requested that the submitted documentation serve as the appeal. The appellant is appealing the value of the property located at 730 Latimer Street, Hillsborough. The current assessed value of the property is $238,300. A list of evidence follows: APPELLANT COUNTY 9864376078 Appeal 9864376078 County Cyle Anderson represented the County and stated that the appellant's opinion of value of the property is $225,000. The appellant states that the condition of the home's interior has deteriorated. The appellant also states that the roof needs repairs due to old and rotting sheathing.Neither photographs of interior and roof deterioration nor cost to cure were provided with this appeal. Mr. Anderson noted that the subject property was purchased in May of 2017 for$231,000 and prior to the purchase a 2016 building permit was issued for renovations at an estimated cost of$90,000. The following are comments from MLS for the 2017 listing of the property: "A bargain to behold! Two bedroom bungalow with attached and detached studios! Another Howard Stabb original! Maintenance free metal roof, Cypress and stucco exterior.Vaulted ceilings. Wood ceilings. Custom cabinets. Tile bathrooms. Wired detached studio for larger art projects which need their own space! Don't wait too long. An acre lot beside the city limits,but without the city taxes!" For reference the MLS number for this closed listing is 2093822. Enclosed with the County's evidence is additional MLS information from Fonville Morisey. Mr. Anderson provided a sales analysis performed by the County using similar homes and lots within the subject property's neighborhood. The average sales price per square foot as well as the median sales price per square foot are both well above the value per square foot of the subject property. For this reason, as well as the 2017 sales price and corresponding MLS information, the County recommends no change to the subject's valuation. The Board reviewed all documents and information provided by the appellant and the County. After deliberation and review,Mr. Beattie made a motion to accept the County's recommendation of no change in value for the property.Ms. Levine seconded the motion and the motion carried. Yes: 3 Noes: 0 FLOYD PIN 9779217534 Glenn Floyd elected not to appear before the Board and requested that the submitted documentation serve as the appeal. The appellant is appealing the value of the property located at 105 Dove Street, Carrboro. The current assessed value of the property is $384,600. A list of evidence follows: APPELLANT COUNTY 9779217534 Appeal 9779217534 County DocuSign Envelope ID:67AF45A6-6792-466B-A530-32D705D517AA Bill Hiltbold represented the County and stated that the owner has appealed the valuation of the property citing soggy ground after a rain and the unpaved Dove Street at the southwest corner of the property negatively affecting the subject's value. Mr. Hiltbold noted that GIS photographs indicate a nearby flood plain to the west of the property,but the subject property is not located in a flood plain. Mr. Hiltbold stated that he visited the property,re-measured the house and found it to be only 28 feet wide,not 29 feet and the garage to be only 14 feet wide,not 20 feet. After correcting the sketch,the living area of the property would be reduced to 1,804 square feet, and with the size correction to the garage,the overall value of the property would be reduced$7,200 to$377,400. A comparable analysis indicates the subject's revised property value of$377,400 would be less than the sale prices of all but one property in the analysis. Therefore, it is the recommendation of the County that no further changes be made to the property's value. The Board reviewed all documents and information provided by the appellant and the County.After deliberation and review,Mr. Beattie made a motion to accept the County's revised value of$377,400. Ms. Levine seconded the motion and the motion carried. Yes: 3 Noes: 0 GRASTY PIN 9788342830 Thomas Grasty III elected not to appear before the Board and requested that the submitted documentation serve as the appeal. The appellant is appealing the value of the property located at 216 Vance Street, Chapel Hill. The current assessed value of the property is $696,700.A list of evidence follows: APPELLANT COUNTY 9788342830 Appeal 9788342830 County Bill Hiltbold represented the County and stated that the appellant is appealing the value of the subject property due to the building value per square foot of the subject being significantly more than the building value per square foot of three neighboring properties. The appellant is requesting that the subject building value be reduced to $303,696. Mr. Hiltbold provided the Board an analysis of these three properties along with other comparable properties in the area. Mr. Hiltbold explained his analysis as follows: Sales in Neighborhood 7162 are shown at the top of the report and are sorted by finished area from largest to smallest. The appraiser boxed sales from Comper based on a range of plus or minus 562 square feet from the square footage of the subject. Within the boxed sales, grades from B to A-10 should be considered. The subject property last sold in 2018 for $760,000 and is presently assessed at$696,700. Mr. Hiltbold further explained that comparable properties found in other neighborhoods should not be considered unless their land value is $330,000 like the subject's land value. 321 W. University Drive had a correction to the basement in February of 2020 reducing its value, and is therefore not considered comparable. 423B Westwood Drive had a lower value after demolition for a renovation in progress at 30%completion in December of 2020. 1 Penick Lane sold for$795,000 in June 2019. DocuSign Envelope ID:67AF45A6-6792-466B-A530-32D705D517AA Within the area of neighborhood 7162: 321 McCauley Street sold for$680,000, 3 Briarbridge Lane sold for$659,000, and 215 W.University Drive sold for$860,000. Of the sales analyzed,the median value per square foot is $259 with the subject being valued at$247 per square foot. Therefore,the County proposes no further adjustments from the informal appeal. The Board reviewed all documents and information provided by the appellant and the County. After deliberation and review,Mr.Beattie made a motion to accept the County's recommendation of no change in value. Ms. Levine seconded the motion and the motion carried. Yes: 3 Noes: 0 ESKEW PIN 9840695158 Mark Eskew elected not to appear before the Board and requested that the submitted documentation serve as the appeal. The appellant is appealing the value of the property located at 5004 Dairyland Road, Hillsborough. The current assessed value of the property is $202,200. A list of evidence follows: APPELLANT COUNTY 9840695158 Appeal 9840695158 County Heidi Whetzel represented the County and stated that the appellant's opinion of value for the property is $347,000 and the structure should be classified as a stick-built home that has been upgraded. Ms.Whetzel stated that the County conducted a site visit on August 10,2021 and upon review, it was discovered that the structure has indeed been remodeled with significant upgrades. The frame of the original 1984 manufactured home was retained but a cedar siding exterior was added. The ceilings of the home were also raised and new steel beams were placed under the foundation. Two gazebos have been added to the subject's deck along with increasing the size of the detached workshop plus adding a cedar siding exterior to the workshop. Ms. Whetzel stated that after review,the County recommends correcting the finished area to 1,367 square feet, changing the quality grade from C-10 to A as a result of the significant upgrades, correcting the deck to reflect two gazebos(open porches)and changing the homesite from A to G. These changes would result in a revised value of$337,200 for the subject property. The Board reviewed all documents and information provided by the appellant and the County. After deliberation and review,Mr. Beattie made a motion to accept the County's revised value of$337,200. Ms. Levine seconded the motion and the motion carried. Yes: 3 Noes: 0 DE MIGUEL SALEM PROPERTIES LLC PIN 9787386328 The appellant failed to appear before the Board to appeal the valuation of the property located at 112 Mallard Court, Chapel Hill. Therefore,the Board considered the appellant's submitted documentation as the appeal. The current assessed value of the property is $257,300. A list of evidence follows: DocuSign Envelope ID:67AF45A6-6792-466B-A530-32D705D517AA APPELLANT COUNTY 9787386328 Appeal 9787386328 County Cyle Anderson represented the County and stated that the appellant's opinion of value is $190,000 citing the fact that the property last sold for$190,000 in May of 2020 with$25,000 in renovations occurring in May 2021. Mr. Anderson noted that sales data on this property indicates that a multi-parcel sale occurred on February 26,2020 at a price of$380,000 for both 111 Mallard Court and 112 Mallard Court, simultaneously. Mr. Anderson noted that after the sale, a permit was issued for a residential addition to the subject in July 2020. The addition entailed conversion of an open porch into living area and a full bath added. This conversion increased the finished area from 1,332 square feet to 1,598 square feet and it was also discovered that the subject's kitchen had been renovated.Mr.Anderson provided he Board with a sales analysis of the four most comparable properties that have recently sold in this townhome community indicating that no changes in value are necessary to the subject property. Taking into consideration the recent addition and renovations after the sale as well as the fact that one sale does not make a market,no further changes are recommended to the current assessment. It is therefore the opinion of Orange County that the current value of$257,300 is appropriately supported by recent comparable sales. The Board reviewed all documents and information provided by the appellant and the County. After deliberation and review,Mr. Beattie made a motion to accept the County's recommendation of no change in value for the subject. Ms. Levine seconded the motion and the motion carried. Yes: 3 Noes: 0 Mr. Beattie made a motion to recess the meeting until 1:30 PM Mr. Beattie called the meeting back to order at 1:30 PM DE PAL PIN 9788699110 Anne Perl De Pal appeared before the Board to appeal the valuation of the property located at 710 E Rosemary Street, Chapel Hill. The current assessed value of the property is $768,700.A list of evidence follows: APPELLANT COUNTY 9788699110 Appeal 9788699110 County The appellant is requesting that the Board reduce the valuation based on the submitted evidence indicating the house was built in 1978,has had no major improvements, and is need of a huge amount of maintenance. The appellant also states that the lad has a steep slope, and Chapel Hill regulations have changed substantially,which in effect makes the lot mostly unbuildable. The appellant also stated that the residence is listed as a multifamily residence but is actually a single-family residence as are neighboring properties. The appellant also stated that the property has issues with erosion as it has recently had DocuSign Envelope ID:67AF45A6-6792-466B-A530-32D705D517AA stormwater issues with flooding from neighboring properties and evasive species of plants are overgrown on the property. Bill Hiltbold represented the County and stated that the residence is classified as a two-to-four family dwelling since the dwelling has two electric meters and the basement could be rented as an apartment. Mr. Hiltbold noted that the subject lot is a steep sided ravine as evidenced from a photograph of the garage on tall columns. Orange County proposes removing the+25% size adjustment to the land value thereby reducing the land value by$95,000. The total property value would decrease from$768,700 to $673,700,just$7,700 above its value before the 2021 countywide revaluation. The Board reviewed all documents and information provided by the appellant and the County. After deliberation and review,Mr. Beattie made a motion to accept the County's revised value of$673,700. Ms. Levine seconded the motion and the motion carried. Yes: 3 Noes: 0 KEMPTER PIN 9788246792 Bryan Kempter appeared before the Board to appeal the valuation of the property located at 307 McCauley Street, Chapel Hill. The current assessed value of the property is $757,800. A list of evidence follows: APPELLANT COUNTY 9788246792 Appeal 9788246792 County The appellant is requesting that the Board reduce the valuation citing the fact that this property was built in the 1920's and was last renovated in the 1970's including being divided into front and rear condos. The appellant stated that the Town has several restrictions on how the property can be used, and the condominium's declaration of covenants also has a list of restrictions. The appellant stated that he tried selling property and he listed the subject property for$239,000 in the mid-1990's and the property was shown for two months. The appellant stated he was unable to sell due to buyers wanting a detached house that did not have restrictions, investors were not interested due to limitations, and the appellant has only been able to lease the unit. The appellant provided three comparable sales in the area and noted that unlike the subject,the three comparable sales have been upgraded. The appellant stated that 445 McCauley Street has a.48 acre lot and is assessed at$495,000,and the appellant feels the .25 acre lot of 307 McCauley Street should be assessed at$250,000 based on the sales provided. Bill Hiltbold represented the County and stated the property is currently classified as a two-to-four family residence. There are two electric meters side by side on the west wall but the front unit is on a separate lot from the subject.Mr. Hiltbold stated that the property is best classified as a rooming house for several students to rent rooms as the subject has one kitchen, four baths, and eight bedrooms. Mr. Hiltbold referred the Board to a plat for the subject where the property line zigzags through the building along the common firewall with the subject property labeled"Unit B". Floor plans filed with the recorded plats show two bathrooms of the attached home to the north extending into the subject dwelling and appear to be partitioned with a renovation in February of 1977. This encroachment is labeled as LQ (living quarters)on the sketch. Mr. Hiltbold stated that as best as he could measure from the plans,the third floor has approximately 1,081 square feet of living area and is labeled as US70 on the revised sketch. DocuSign Envelope ID:67AF45A6-6792-466B-A530-32D705D517AA Photographs provided show this building is in dire need of maintenance and repair. Mr. Hiltbold recommended changing the building type from Two-to-Four Family residence to Rooming House and removing the 50%market adjustment factor on the land reducing its value from$495,000 to the$330,000 base lot rate for the neighborhood. Also,what was originally recorded as a finished attic should now be a now a 70%third floor. This would correct the subject's finished area from 3,606 square feet to 4,327 square feet. Mr. Hiltbold also recommended a slight adjustment to the effective year built from 1980 to 1982. After application of all recommended changes,the total property value would decrease by $183,300 from$757,800 to $574,500. The Board reviewed all documents and information provided by the appellant and the County. After deliberation and review,Mr. Beattie made a motion to accept the County's revised value of$574,500. Ms.Levine seconded the motion and the motion carried. Yes: 3 Noes: 0 Mr. Beattie made a motion to recess the meeting until 2:15 PM Mr. Beattie called the meeting back to order at 2:12 PM RIKE PIN 9798475877 This is a continuation from a prior meeting held on August 18,2021. The Board requested this continuation due to the prior Zoom meeting technical difficulties. Leon Meyers was present for this appeal in the last meeting. However,Mr. Meyers was unable to attend this meeting and in his place, Ryan Petrone is serving as an alternate Board member and has reviewed the recording from this appeal. Zachary Rike appeared before the Board to appeal the valuation of the property located at 1054 Canterbury Lane, Chapel Hill. The current assessed value of the property is $1,125,300. The appellant requested that the Board reduce the valuation of the property to $840,500 citing the fact that the appellant purchased the property for that amount in an open market transaction in November 2020,the appellant provided comparable sales to support this value, and the appellant believes $840,500 to be the true value of the property. A list of evidence follows: APPELLANT COUNTY 9798475877 Appeal 9798475877 County Jimmy Milliken represented the County and stated that the appellant's appeal documentation included an appraisal in conjunction with the sale of the subject indicating a value of$893,900. After reviewing the information from the appraisal and the sales from the neighborhood,the County determined the sale appears to be a distressed sale due to a separation per the property deed. Mr. Milliken provided a listing and price history,which illustrated the drastic value drop in a booming market. Two grids were provided from the appraisal report information and the County's evidence. Based on the evidence pointing to a distressed sale, along with 2019 &2020 sales in the area,the County recommends a revised value of $990,300. Mr. Beattie asked if the County would recommend a different revised value other than the$990,300 from the distressed sale due to unknown facts of the contract. DocuSign Envelope ID:67AF45A6-6792-466B-A530-32D705D517AA Mr. Milliken stated he recommended the reassessed value of$990,300 due to not having prior knowledge of the subject property's condition and he would make a no change in value if the distressed sale was not taken into account. Mr. Milliken stated that based on the condition of the subject property,the County now recommends a revised value of$893,900 based on the appraisal from the appellants purchase. The Board reviewed all documents and information provided by the appellant and the County. After deliberation and review,Mr.Beattie made a motion to accept the new County's recommended revised value of$893,900. Ms. Levine seconded the motion and the motion carried. Yes: 3 Noes: 0 ANTHONY PESSINO,TRUSTEE PIN 9788330454 Anthony Pessino appeared before the Board to appeal the valuation of the property located at 604 S. Columbia Street, Chapel Hill. The current assessed value of the property is $782,300. A list of evidence follows: APPELLANT COUNTY 9788330454 Appeal 9788330454 County The appellant is requesting that the Board reduce the valuation citing the fact that the subject property was purchased on December 31, 2020 for$738,000 and is requesting that the assessed value match the market value purchase price. Bill Hiltbold represented the County and stated that he visited this property on July 7, 2021 and re- measured the exterior of the building. A narrow space between the old house and an addition has been enclosed and the multi-story portion is actually 26 feet deep. Mr. Hiltbold found the third floor should be a three-quarter story rather than a half story and the recorded 50%unfinished basement is just a slab for heating equipment and the space is open to crawl space which should be relabeled as masonry foundation only.After correcting the sketch and recalculating,the living area would increase from 3,146 square feet to 3,571 square feet. Mr. Hiltbold noted that an increase in living area certainly increases building value despite the owner appealing to have the value reduced to the latest sale price. Mr. Hiltbold referred the Board to an analysis report of sales in the subject neighborhood from 2017 through 2020. The sales are all within 629 square feet of living area of the subject. Mr. Hiltbold noted 531 Dogwood Drive sold for$920,000 with slightly less living area and one fewer bath than the subject. The home at 428 Westwood Drive sold for $1,027,500 despite being smaller with two less baths but its effective year built is 2012 indicating a renovation. The home at 317 W. University Drive sold for$700,000 but its living area is 637 square feet less than the subject, its grade is one point lower, and it has one and'h fewer baths. Then there is the sale of the subject property on the last day of 2020 for$738,000. Mr. Hiltbold stated that after reviewing the property,the County proposes changing the effective year built from 1998 to 1985 which would increase the building value by$6,100 and the total property value from$782,300 to$788,400. This modest increase is justified in the value per square foot going down from$248 to $220 compared to the median of sold properties at$243 per square foot. DocuSign Envelope ID:67AF45A6-6792-466B-A530-32D705D517AA The appellant stated that since buying the subject property there have been no major changes made,the purchase was for the property"as is"and the property was vacant at least 18 months to two years before the purchase. The appellant opined that to compare the subject property to comparable properties provided by County would not be equitable due to the condition of the subject. Mr. Beattie hesitated to take into consideration the County's comparable properties due to the multiple offers when the subject property sold at the end of 2020 indicating an arm's length transaction. The Board reviewed all documents and information provided by the appellant and the County. After deliberation and review,Mr.Beattie made a motion to accept the appellant's opinion of value of $738,000. Ms. Levine seconded the motion and the motion carried. Yes: 3 Noes: 0 SWAN PIN 9788487508 On behalf of Samantha Swan,her husband Stephen Cheek appeared before the Board to appeal the valuation of the property located at 208 Cottage Lane, Chapel Hill. The current assessed value of the property is $346,100. A list of evidence follows: APPELLANT COUNTY 9788487508 Appeal 9788487508 County The appellant is requesting that the Board reduce the valuation citing the fact that a market valuation was performed on October 25,2018 due to his father-in-law passing away and titles to his properties were passed to his children, one of them being his wife.A valuation needed for probate purposes resulted in a value of$251,000. Mr. Cheek stated this valuation was included in the appeal documents indicating the assessed value was $95,000 dollars more than an open market valuation just over 2 years ago. Over three years that would indicate a 10% compounded increase in value. Bill Hiltbold represented the County and provided an analysis report stating there are only two good comparable properties for the subject property within the subject neighborhood. The five properties chosen for consideration by the fee appraiser and County appraiser are listed in the"other neighborhoods" section of the analysis report. 208 Barclay Road is out of the comparable grade range of D+10 to C and the land value is $126,000 below the land value of the subject. 107 Carr Street, 707 N. Columbia Street, and 113 Isley Street are about half the size of the subject lot with corresponding lower land values. Mr. Hiltbold stated that the best comparable properties are in the subject neighborhood. The boxed properties in the analysis report encloses properties within 214 square feet of the subject. The County ignored 401 North Street since its grade at B+10 is outside the comparable range and its land value is only $190,000. 17 Cobb Terrace and 504A North Street are good for comparison in that their land value, finished area, and grade are close to those of the subject and their sale prices are close to the subject's assessed value. Finally,the value per square foot of the subject is consistent with most of the others. Orange County sees no reason to adjust the present value of 208 Cottage Lane. The appellant asked to see the County's comparable properties that he did not receive and was not aware of the information being available to him. DocuSign Envelope ID:67AF45A6-6792-466B-A530-32D705D517AA After discussion with the appellant,Nancy Freeman addressed the initial notices had information where he could access the comparable properties. However,in the May notices the information was not provided. The Board reviewed all documents and information provided by the appellant and the County. After deliberation and review,Mr. Beattie made a motion to table the appeal after Mrs. Freeman gets in touch with the appellant in regards to providing the County's comparable properties. Ms. Levine seconded the motion and the motion carried. Yes: 3 Noes: 0 BLASS PIN 9788612237 Emma Blass appeared before the Board to appeal the valuation of the property located at 502 Oteys Road, Chapel Hill. The current assessed value of the property is $678,600. A list of evidence follows: APPELLANT COUNTY 9788612237 Appeal 9788612237 County The appellant is requesting that the Board reduce the valuation citing the fact that the appellant bought this property six years ago for$575,000 and it had been on the market for a long time before purchase. The appellant stated the subject property has one major drawback,being close to US Hwy. 15-501which renders most of the lot unusable. Appellant provided relevant comparable sale prices of neighboring properties. One property similar in size, similar in age sold for$575,000 in January of 2021. The appellant stated that houses similar to subject property near Hwy. 15-501 stay on the market for a longer length of time and sell for lower prices due to noise and pollution. Bill Hiltbold represented the County and stated from the overhead GIS photograph of the subject,the residence is 251 feet from Fordham Boulevard and is separated by a wooded lot that will probably remain unimproved since connecting that lot to the city sewer system would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars.A letter from Orange Water and Sewer Authority was provided to the Board. The land value for the subject property is consistent with surrounding developed lots at$320,000. Mr. Hiltbold provided an analysis report for the Board and noted 803 Coker Drive is presented by the appellant as a comparable property. However, 803 Coker Drive is not a single family residence,but rather a two-to four family residence,which usually sell for more than single family residences since they are income-producing properties. 803 Coker Drive has only 2,487 square feet which is below the comparable range for the neighborhood and its land value is $95,000 less than that of the subject property. For these reasons, 803 Coker Drive is not considered a good comparable. 1 Penick Lane and 3 Buttons Road are better comparable properties since their living areas,grades, and land values are within close range of the subject. Both sold recently for well above the assessed value of the subject. Mr. Hiltbold stated that he visited the home and found the garage which had been sketched at 553 square feet is actually 691 square feet. Also,the rear deck has been enlarged from 204 square feet to 434 square feet. Mr. Hiltbold stated he corrected the sketch but recommends reducing the effective year built of the subject from 2004 to 2000. These changes reduce the building and total property value by$3,200 from $678,600 to $675,400. DocuSign Envelope ID:67AF45A6-6792-466B-A530-32D705D517AA The appellant perceived comparable properties provided in the appeal are more realistic due to location within the highway compared to the comparable properties provided by the County appraiser. Mr. Beattie asked if there were any comparable properties nearer to the subject property. Mr. Hiltbold provided neighborhood sales such as 403 Whitehead Circle which sold for$1,150,000,410 Whitehead Circle which sold for$712,500, and 413 Whitehead Circle which sold for$875,000. Mr. Hiltbold noted that all three sales are within the same grade and finished area range as the subject and their values were in line with the value given to the subject property. The Board reviewed all documents and information provided by the appellant and the County. After deliberation and review,Mr. Beattie made a motion to accept the County's revised value of$675,400. Ms. Levine seconded the motion and the motion carried. Yes: 3 Noes: 0 BURRIDGE PIN 9788342110 Keith Burridge appeared before the Board to appeal the valuation of the property located at 6 Briarbridge Lane, Chapel Hill. The current assessed value of the property is $817,400. A list of evidence follows: APPELLANT COUNTY 9788342110 Appeal 9788342110 County The appellant is requesting that the Board reduce the valuation citing the fact that despite the correction of the living space from an informal appeal,the building valuation of the house has remained at$483,200, more than$100,000 higher than houses in the area of equivalent or larger size. The appellant provided a number of comparable properties to support this request. Bill Hiltbold represented the County and explained that with an informal appeal processed in April this year,the appellant submitted a fee appraisal listing the second floor as 990 square feet of low ceiling non- living area, so no second floor was indicated on the sketch. Mr. Hiltbold stated that in processing this appeal,he went inside the residence and found two bedrooms and a bath on the second floor with 562 square feet under a 7 foot ceiling and labeled this area as US 30 (upper story 30%of the main area below). Mr. Hiltbold stated the home does not have a basement. There is a slab for heating and air conditioning equipment but the area is open to the crawl space and not suitable for dry storage.Mr. Hiltbold stated he changed the BSU7 (75%unfinished basement)to MSRY(masonry foundation). The garage is under the addition on the back. Mr. Hiltbold relabeled this area as MA(main area) over BG (basement garage) and deleted the lump sum value for a basement garage. Corrections to the sketch now calculate living area at 3,031 square feet. Mr. Hiltbold explained that the discovery of the second floor living area will raise the value of the building. Mr. Hiltbold then referred the Board to an analysis report which contained three good comparison properties within neighborhood 7162. 305 W. University Drive is smaller than the subject with no half bath that sold for$560,000. 3 Briarbridge Lane is still smaller than the corrected subject and sold for$659,000. The third and best comparison is 215 W. University Drive which has the same land value, same grade, similar finished area, and one more bath than the subject and sold for$860,000. After DocuSign Envelope ID:67AF45A6-6792-466B-A530-32D705D517AA review of the property,Mr. Hiltbold proposed applying 10%functional depreciation for layout along with the 12%average depreciation,which would total 20.8%depreciation for the residence and reduce the building value by$118,600. The total property value would decrease from$817,400 to $698,800,which would be in the midst of the three comparable sales on a value per square foot basis. The Board reviewed all documents and information provided by the appellant and the County. After deliberation and review,Mr.Beattie made a motion to accept the County's revised value of$698,800. Ms. Levine seconded the motion and the motion carried. Yes: 3 Noes: 0 Dellon PIN 9788123710 Evan Dellon appeared before the Board to appeal the valuation of the property located at 516 Dogwood Drive, Chapel Hill. The current assessed value of the property is $812,100.A list of evidence follows: APPELLANT COUNTY 9788123710 Appeal 9788123710 County The appellant is requesting that the Board lower the valuation citing the fact that the property was revalued two years ago. The appellant explained that he bought the subject property in 2011 for $442,000, did renovations after construction raising his cost to $644,700,but at that time no revaluation was done and the value stayed the same. Two years ago,the kitchen was renovated and around 200 square feet was added to the living area and the value was increased in 2019 from$644,000 to $771,000. Before the pandemic,the appellant discussed the valuation with the Tax Office and the value was decreased to $731,000. Now after 18 months,the value has increased again about 11%. Bill Hiltbold represented the County and stated that he visited the property and re-measured the back and side of the home and corrected the sketch. Mr. Hiltbold stated that the basement extended 12 feet further to the right than depicted on the 2019 sketch. With the correction to the finished basement,the total finished area increases from 3,465 square feet to 3,467 square feet and without an unfinished basement, the building value is reduced$8,200. Mr. Hiltbold stated that the home is built on a steep hillside and the driveway is difficult to enter and exit. Mr. Hiltbold recommended reducing the Appraiser reduced the 10% size adjustment on the land to 5%,which reduces land value by$16,500. If approved by the Board these recommended changes would reduce the total value of the property$24,700 from$812,100 to $787,400. The Board reviewed all documents and information provided by the appellant and the County. After deliberation and review,Mr. Beattie made a motion to accept the County's revised value of$787,400. Ms. Levine seconded the motion and the motion carried. Yes: 3 Noes: 0 Mr. Beattie made a motion to recess the meeting until 4:00 PM DocuSign Envelope ID:67AF45A6-6792-466B-A530-32D705D517AA Mr. Beattie called the meeting back to order at 4:02 PM SEN PIN 9788146016 Buer Sen failed to appear before the Board to appeal the valuation of the property located at 425 Brookside Drive, Chapel Hill. The Board considered the appellant's submitted documentation as the appeal. The current assessed value of the property is $599,100. A list of evidence follows: APPELLANT COUNTY 9788146016 Appeal 9788146016 County Bill Hiltbold represented the County and referenced photographs of the subject property indicating needed painting, repairs, and maintenance. Mr. Hiltbold stated that he measured the carport and corrected the sketch and recommended changing the effective year built from 1980 to 1975. If approved these changes would decrease the building value $7,800 and the total assessed value from$599,100 to $591,300. The Board reviewed all documents and information provided by the appellant and the County. After deliberation and review,Mr.Beattie made a motion to accept the County's revised value of$591,300. Ms. Levine seconded the motion and the motion carried. Yes: 3 Noes: 0 Mr. Beattie made a motion to recess the meeting until 4:15 PM Mr. Beattie called the meeting back to order at 4:15 PM COPELAND PIN 9788333707 Daniel Copeland appeared before the Board to appeal the valuation of the property located at 2 Briarbridge Lane, Chapel Hill. The current assessed value of the property is $1,229,300. A list of evidence follows: APPELLANT COUNTY 9788333707 Appeal 9788333707 County The appellant is requesting that the Board reduce the valuation citing the fact that the subject property is higher in value than other properties in the neighborhood. The appellant provided an appraisal along with a summary of neighborhood values around the subject property that show significantly lower assessed values than the subject. DocuSign Envelope ID:67AF45A6-6792-466B-A530-32D705D517AA Bill Hiltbold represented the County and noted that the appeal documents included a fee appraisal developed May 20,2021 with a valuation of$950,000,which is after the revaluation date,but four of the five comparable properties in the appraisal sold prior to January 1,2021 and can be considered. Mr. Hiltbold noted the subject parcel is larger than those around it at 1.2 acres and with the countywide revaluation was given a 100%increase above the $330,000 per lot base rate for the neighborhood since it is directly across Columbia Street from UNC Hospitals. Mr.Hiltbold recommended a 50%increase over the base rate,which would reduce the land value to$495,000,the same value as smaller lots surrounding the subject. Mr. Hiltbold stated that he visited the property and corrected the sketch with an open(not screened)porch on the front, a storage basement(unfinished)with a full bath.Along with adjustments to the second floor and attached apartment,the living area would be corrected from 3,591 square feet to 3,516 square feet and the bath count corrected from 3 full baths and 1 half bath to 5 full baths and 1 half bath. Mr.Hiltbold also recommended changing the effective year built from 2010 to 1980. If the Board approves these changes the land value will decrease by$165,000,the building value will decrease by$111,000 and the total property value reduced by$276,000 from$1,229,300 to $953,300. The Board reviewed all documents and information provided by the appellant and the County. After deliberation and review,Mr. Beattie made a motion to accept the County's revised value of$953,300. Ms.Levine seconded the motion and the motion carried. Yes: 3 Noes: 0 KANTOR PIN 9777800334 Boris Kantor failed to appear before the Board to appeal the valuation of the property located at 1013 Shagbark Court, Chapel Hill. The Board considered the submitted documents as the appeal. The current assessed value of the property is $868,300. A list of evidence follows: APPELLANT COUNTY 9777800334 Appeal 9777800334 County Bill Hiltbold represented the County and stated the owner included a fee appraisal with the appeal and requests the value be reduced from$868,300 to the October 2020 sale price of$820,000. Mr. Hiltbold stated that he visited the property and corrected the sketch adding a 762 square foot deck, corrected the bath count to 4 full baths, and corrected the finished area to 4,509 finished square feet. Mr. Hiltbold referenced an analysis report that indicated the subject is the largest home to sell during 2019-2020 and it has a pool and detached patios. Of the comparable sales selected by the fee appraiser and county appraiser only 560 Sun Forest Way is not in the neighborhood. That property sold for$935,000 but has 6 acres of land. Mr. Hiltbold recommended applying 10% functional depreciation to the subject for being overimproved and removing the 5%land size adjustment which would lower the total property value from$868,300 to $831,200. The Board reviewed all documents and information provided by the appellant and the County. After deliberation and review,Mr. Beattie made a motion to accept the County's revised value of$831,200. Ms. Levine seconded the motion and the motion carried. DocuSign Envelope ID:67AF45A6-6792-466B-A530-32D705D517AA Yes: 3 Noes: 0 Having heard all of the appeals scheduled on this date,Mr. Beattie made a motion to adjourn this meeting at 4:30 PM. The motion was seconded by Ryan Petrone and the meeting was adjourned. DocuSigned by: lkut v I5t,afhc, Hunter Beattie, Chair 4/1/2022 DocuS//i/gned by:: 4/1/2022 Vrinlli Flores,Recording Secretary