Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021_09_21 BOER MINUTES DocuSign Envelope ID:829287C5-347E-4858-A71B-9A76931379611 MINUTES Board of Equalization and Review Date: September 21,2021 Board Members Present: Hunter Beattie, Chair Leon Meyers, Regular Barbara Levine,Regular Staff Members Present: Nancy Freeman,Tax Administrator Steven"Chad"Phillip,Deputy Tax Assessor Roger Gunn, Real Property Appraisal Manager Kelly Wells, Chief Appraiser Jimmy Milliken,Appraiser Dana Hall,Appraiser Shavonda McLean, Appraiser Christy Carden,Business Personal Property Appraiser Anne Marie Tosco, County Attorney Scherri McCray,Buisness Officer SCHEDULE: 9789309945 Kathryn Newell Appearing 9778523977 Rita Jankovich Appearing 9798345972.065 Roger Stephens Not Appearing 9739008313 Coy Isaacs Appearing 3191743 Gavin C Heymann DDS MS PA Not Appearing 271052 Kingsdown Not Appearing 3196512 Kingsdown Not Appearing 9846778799 Linda Justice Not Appearing 9860992018 Jeff Tate Not Appearing 9860899189 Jeff Tate Not Appearing 9860990006 Jeff Tate Not Appearing 9799739635 Hudai Dirilten Not Appearing 9768778606 Thomas Spector Not Appearing 9798283416 Gregg Marcellus Not Appearing 9858414173 Rachel Pope Not Appearing Chair Hunter Beattie called the meeting to order at 1:OOPM. NEWELL PIN 9789309945 This appeal was continued from June 23,2021 to allow the Board to receive guidance from the County Attorney as to what constitutes"equitable rights". Nathaniel Smith, an attorney representing Jeffery Newell, appeared before the Board to appeal the County's denial of the property for Homestead Exclusion.A list of evidence follows: DocuSign Envelope ID:829287C5-347E-4858-A71B-9A76931379611 APPELLANT COUNTY 9789309945 Appeal 9789309945 County Mr. Smith stated that the appeal was based on the denial of the Disabled Exclusion by the County on the grounds that the appellant was not the legal owner of the property as of January 1,2021. Mr. Smith noted that the appellant was the owner of the property as January 1,2021 based on the definition given in NCGS 105-277.1 subsection 1B,that an owner is defined as a person who holds legal OR equitable title, either individually or jointly. Thereby,based on the evidence presented by the appellant and under this statute,Mr.Newell is considered an equitable owner of this property and thereby is entitled to be granted the Disabled Exclusion. Anne Marie Tosco represented the County and stated that this is mainly a matter of first impression and has not been addressed under the tax statute. The law that that Mr. Smith has presented is a lot more rooted in real estate tax law and the law makes it clear that the type of recorded contract that is between Mr.Newell and Ms.Newell does create equitable title for Mr.Newell. The Board reviewed all documents and information provided by the appellant and the County. After deliberation and review,Mr. Beattie made a motion to grant the appellant the Disabled Exclusion. Ms. Levine seconded the motion and the motion carried. Yes: 3 Noes: 0 JANKOVICH PIN 9778523977 Rita Jankovich appeared before the Board to appeal the valuation of the property located at 128 Weatherhill Pointe, Carrboro. The current assessed value of the property is $285,000. A list of evidence follows: APPELLANT COUNTY 9778523977 Appeal 9778523977 County The appellant is requesting that the Board lower the valuation to $230,750($120,750 for the house and $110,000 for the land) citing that the appellant's property has the highest building value but the second smallest square footage compared to the surrounding properties. Kelly Wells represented the County and stated that the subject property is a frame house with 1,481 square feet living area built in 1984 and last sold in March 2017 for$287,000. Ms. Wells stated that the appeal is based on the values of improvements of neighboring properties and the appellant's supporting documentation states that the subject property is smaller,has less bathrooms, and is only 1-story compared to most of the other properties in the neighborhood. Ms. Wells stated that the Orange County Schedule of Values was applied to calculate the building value based on story height and number of baths,and in comparing the properties submitted by the appellant, the value per square foot for the subject property is comparable to the values of the surrounding properties. Therefore,based on the value per square foot and sales of similar properties in the area along with the recent 2017 purchase of the subject property,Ms. Wells recommended that no change be made to the current valuation of$285,000. 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 to the current valuation.Mr.Myers seconded the motion and the motion carried. DocuSign Envelope ID:829287C5-347E-4858-A71B-9A76931379611 Yes: 3 Noes: 0 STEPHENS PIN 9798345972.065 Roger Stephens elected not to appear before the Board and requested that the submitted documentation serve as the appeal. The appellant is appealing the valuation of the property located at 4501 Enivron Way, Chapel Hill. The current assessed value of the property is $275,800. A list of evidence follows: APPELLANT COUNTY 9798345972.065 Appeal 9798345972.065 County The appellant is requesting that the Board lower the valuation of the property to $260,000. This opinion of value was based on the value changes of other condominiums in the building from the 2021 revaluation. The appellant stated that in addition to the aforementioned values of other properties,the lack of aesthetic characteristics for the subject property and the concentrated number of Community Home Trust properties in the 4000 Building is also a determining factor for the appellant's opinion of value. Kelly Wells represented the County and stated that the subject property is a 972 square foot end unit condominium located on the top floor of the 4000 building in the East 54 Condominiums complex in Chapel Hill. Ms. Wells noted that while working a previous informal appeal in the same condominium complex, it was brought to the County's attention the correlation between sale prices and the locations and/or views of individual properties. The County,with the direction from the Board, adjusted the grades and construction modifiers to the properties within buildings 2000, 3000, and 4000. These adjustments were applied to the subject property: the grade was changed from AA05 to AA and the construction modifier design factor was reduced to .90. Based on these changes already made,the County recommends no additional change in value for the 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 recommendation of no change in value for the property. Ms. Levine seconded the motion and the motion carried. Yes: 3 Noes: 0 ISAACS PIN 9739008313 Coy Isaacs appeared before the Board to appeal the County's denial of the Present Use Value application submitted for the property located at 6516 Morrow Mill Road, Chapel Hill. A list of evidence follows: APPELLANT COUNTY 9739008313 Appeal 9739008313 County The appellant is requesting that the Board accept the untimely filing of the Present Use Value application. The appellant stated that the reason for the late submittal of the application was due to personal matters and a miscommunication between the closing attorney and the Tax Office. DocuSign Envelope ID:829287C5-347E-4858-A71B-9A76931379611 Dana Hall represented the County and informed the Board that the subject parcel is under appeal due to the untimely filed continued use application for the Present Use Value(PUV)Program submitted on September 10,2021. Ms. Hall explained that the property was enrolled in the PUV program when it was sold to the appellant on June 21,2021. Ms. Hall stated that according to North Carolina General Statute 105-277.4(a)when a property enrolled in the PUV program transfers to a new owner, a new application for continued enrollment in the program must be timely filed with the Assessor's office within 60 days of the ownership change. The appellant failed to submit the continued use application within the allotted 60 days of the transfer date of the property to new ownership and therefore,the application was denied. 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 untimely filed PUV continued use application. Ms. Levine seconded the motion and the motion carried. Yes: 3 Noes: 0 HEYMANN Account 3191743 Gavin C. Heymann DDS elected not to appear before the Board and requested that the submitted documentation serve as the appeal. The appellant is requesting compromise of taxes in the amount of $1,225.59 related to a late listing of business personal property for the 2021 tax year.A list of evidence follows: APPELLANT COUNTY 3191743 Appeal 3191743 County The appellant stated that they have maintained a diligent record of compliance with all filings. The appellant had no willful intention of disobeying the due date of the tax filing. Based on the extenuating facts and circumstances presented including an oversight by the CPA contracted to prepare the listing,the appellant respectfully requests abatement of all penalties associated with the late listing for the 2021 tax listing. Ms. Carden represented the County and confirmed that the appellant requested and was granted an extension on the filing of their business personal property listing but that the appellant failed to meet the extension deadline of April 15, 2021. Therefore,the listing penalty was applied for the 2021 tax year. The Board reviewed all documents and information provided by the appellant and the County. After deliberation and review,Mr. Beattie made a motion to compromise the taxes of$1,225.59 due to the oversight of a new CPA.Ms. Levine seconded the motion and the motion carried. Yes: 3 Noes: 0 KINGSDOWN Account 271052 The appellant elected not to appear before the Board and requested that the submitted documentation serve as the appeal. The appellant is requesting that the Board compromise the taxes in the amount of $1,076.36 related to a late listing of business personal property for the 2021 tax year.A list of evidence follows: DocuSign Envelope ID:829287C5-347E-4858-A71B-9A76931379611 APPELLANT COUNTY 271052 Appeal 271052 County The appellant is requesting that the Board compromise the late listing penalties stating that the tardiness in filing was due to updating in accounting. Christy Carden presented represented the County and stated that the appellant failed to timely file a Business Personal Property listing form. Ms. Carden stated the following timeline of events: • May 31,2021,Discovery Notices was mailed • July 31, 2021, Property Tax Bills were mailed • August 19, 2021,Kingsdown made a full payment including the listing penalty Ms. Carden stated that the appellant requests a Compromise of Taxes for the listing penalty in the total amount of$1,076.36. However, in accordance to NCGS 105-312(k), once taxes have been paid,the county's claim for those taxes has been settled and the taxes can no longer be compromised. Mr. Beattie asked for advice from the County Attorney to whether the Board has the authority to refund a listing penalty once the penalty has been paid. The Board reviewed all documents and information provided by the appellant and the County. After deliberation and review,Mr. Myers made a motion to table this appeal to allow the County Attorney to review the applicable statute. This meeting will resume on the September 28, 2021 at 2:15 PM. Ms. Levine seconded the motion and the motion carried. Yes: 3 Noes: 0 KINGSDOWN Account 3196512 The appellant elected not to appear before the Board and requested that the submitted documentation serve as the appeal. The appellant is requesting that the Board compromise the taxes in the amount of $3,206.33 related to a late listing of business personal property for the 2021 tax year. A list of evidence follows: APPELLANT COUNTY 3196512 Appeal 3196512 County The appellant is requesting that the Board compromise the late listing penalties stating that the tardiness in filing was due to updating in accounting. Christy Carden represented the County and stated the subject account is a new account for Orange County and that the appellant failed to timely file a Business Personal Property listing form. Ms. Carden stated the following timeline of events: • August 17, 2021,the County received a listing for the new location • August 17, 2021, an appeal for the compromise of late list penalty was received in the Tax Office • September 14,202, a tax bill was created Ms. Carden stated that the taxes have not been paid. The Board reviewed all documents and information provided by the appellant and the County. After deliberation and review,Mr. Beattie made a motion to deny the compromise of the late listing penalty DocuSign Envelope ID:829287C5-347E-4858-A71B-9A76931379611 stating that the appellant did not provide any explanation as to good cause for the late filing. Mr.Myers seconded the motion and the motion carried. Yes: 3 Noes: 0 JUSTICE PIN 9846778799 Linda Justice elected not to appear before the Board and requested that the submitted documentation serve as the appeal. The appellant is appealing a vacant 86.08 acre property located on Efland Cedar Grove Road,Efland. The current assessed value of the property is $46,436. A list of evidence follows: APPELLANT COUNTY 9846778799 Appeal 9846778799 County The appellant is appalling the valuation due to three acres being assessed at market value rather than forestry Present Use Value. Dana Hall represented the County and stated that after reviewing the original application and an aerial image in 2006,it appeared that the three acres under appeal were not in forestry use. However,the appellant acknowledged that she had planted loblolly pines in the winter of 2005. Based on the evidence presented by the appellant,Ms. Hall recommended changing the assessed value for the three acres from the market value rate to the forestry present use value rate. Once applied,this recommendation would result in a revised assessed value of$21,692. 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 recommended changes and the revised value of$21,692. Ms. Levine seconded the motion and the motion carried. Yes: 3 Noes: 0 TATE PIN 9860899189,PIN 9860992018, &PIN 9860990006 Jeff Tate elected not to appear before the Board and requests that the submitted documentation serve as the appeal. The appeal is for three individual properties listed below. A list of evidence follows: APPELLANT COUNTY 9860899189 Appeal 9860899189 County 9860992018 Appeal 9860992018 County 9860990006 Appeal 9860990006 County Parcel Identification Number 9860899189 is property located at 7024 Old NC 86, Chapel Hill and has a current assessed value of$8,000. DocuSign Envelope ID:829287C5-347E-4858-A71B-9A76931379611 The appellant is requesting that the Board lower the valuation of all this property because the land is not buildable. Jimmy Milliken represented the County and recommended that no change be made to the current valuation of this property stating that the subject property already has a current no perc adjustment applied to its value,which is to say that the lot is not suitable for a conventional septic system. The Board reviewed all documents and information provided by the appellant and the County. After deliberation and review,Mr. Beattie made a motion that no change be made to the current valuation. Ms. Levine seconded the motion and the motion carried. Yes: 3 Noes: 0 Parcel Identification Number 9860992018 is a property located at 7120 Old NC 86,Hillsborough. The current assessed value of this property is $123,800. The appellant is requesting that the Board lower the valuation because the land is not buildable. Jimmy Milliken represented the County and stated that after reviewing the subject property, a-30% adjustment for topography and flag shape were warranted. Mr. Milliken stated that that there were no records of the property not being buildable. With the application of the recommended adjustment,the revised valuation of the subject property would be $86,700. 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 recommended adjustment and revised valuation of$86,700. Ms. Levine seconded the motion and the motion carried. Yes: 3 Noes: 0 Parcel Identification Number 9860990006 is a .46 acre vacant lot located on Old NC 86, Chapel Hill. The current assessed value of this property is $30,500. The appellant is requesting that the Board lower the valuation because the land is not buildable. Jimmy Milliken represented the County and stated that after reviewing the subject property, it is the County's recommendation that a-75%adjustment be applied to the subject property to compensate for the lot size and for a stream running through the subject property which essentially prevents the property from being buildable. When the recommended adjustment is applied,the revised valuation of the property will be $7,600. 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 recommended adjustment and revised valuation of$7,600. Ms. Levine seconded the motion and the motion carried Yes: 3 Noes: 0 Dirilten PIN 9799739635 DocuSign Envelope ID:829287C5-347E-4858-A71B-9A76931379611 Hudai Dirilten 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 100 Nottingham Drive, Chapel Hill. The current assessed value of the property is $821,500. A list of evidence follows: APPELLANT COUNTY 9799739635 Appeal 9799739635 County The appellant is requesting that the Board lower the valuation to $675,000 citing the opinion of value is based on comparable sales evidence that the appellant provided. Jimmy Milliken represented the County and stated that after reviewing all the appellant's comparable sales and those of the County, Mr. Milliken recommended adjusting the land value down 5%to account for the subject property's smaller golf course frontage and view. The recommended adjustment would result in a revised valuation of$790,500 for the 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 recommended adjustment and the revised value of$790,500 for the property. Ms. Levine seconded the motion and the motion carried. Yes: 3 Noes: 0 SPECTOR PIN 9768778606 Thomas Spector 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 204 Wild Turkey Trail, Chapel Hill. The current assessed value of the property is $175,000.A list of evidence follows: APPELLANT COUNTY 9768778606 Appeal 9768778606 County The appellant is requesting that the Board lower the valuation to $150,000 based on the property being unimproved. Jimmy Milliken represented the County and stated that the subject property is a vacant lot and based on maps and a visual inspection,the rear of the subject property has topography issues. Therefore, Mr. Milliken recommended a-10% adjustment be applied to the subject property to account for the topography issues. After application of recommended adjustment,the revised value of the subject would be $157,500. 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 County's recommended adjustment and the revised value of$157,500.Ms. Levine seconded the motion and the motion carried. Yes: 3 Noes: 0 DocuSign Envelope ID:829287C5-347E-4858-A71B-9A76931379611 MARCELLUS PIN 9798283416 Gregg Marcellus 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 220 Hayes Road, Chapel Hill. The current assessed value of the property is $244,200. A list of evidence follows: APPELLANT COUNTY 9798283416 Appeal 9798283416 County The appellant is requesting that the Board lower the valuation to $210,000. The appellant's option of value is based on a recent area sale. Jimmy Milliken represented the County and noted that the appellant submitted as evidence the sale of 236 Hayes Road, Chapel Hill,which sold for$205,000 on May 21,2021.Mr.Milliken stated that the sale occurred after the January 1,2021 revaluation date and should not be considered for the subject's valuation. Consequently, due to the lack of any further evidence from the appellant,the County recommends no change to the current valuation of the property The Board reviewed all documents and information provided by the appellant and the County. After deliberation and review,Mr. Beattie made a motion that no change be made to the current value of the property. Ms.Levine seconded the motion and the motion carried. Yes: 3 Noes: 0 POPE PIN 9858414173 Rachel Pope 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 1101 Carr Store Road, Cedar Grove. The current assessed value of the property is $280,000. A list of evidence follows: APPELLANT COUNTY 9858414173 Appeal 9858414173 County The appellant states that a 1,300 square foot metal storage building was destroyed in 2018 and its value is still being assessed by the County. Dana Hall represented the County and stated that she conducted a field inspection on September 8,2021 and confirmed that the 1,300-square foot metal storage building was no longer on the property. Therefore, The County recommended the removal of the 1,300-square foot metal storage building valued at $14,000 from the property record card. This adjustment would result in a revised value of$266,000. 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 and the revised valuation of$266,000. Ms. Levine seconded the motion and the motion carried. Yes: 3 Noes: 0 DocuSign Envelope ID:829287C5-347E-4858-A71B-9A769313791311 Having heard all of the appeals scheduled on this date, Mr. Beattie made a motion to adjourn this meeting at 2:20 PM. Ms. Levine seconded the motion and the meeting was adjourned. EDocuSigned by: tiu"ft v bt Afht, 52D9AA6883DE4DE... 4/1/2022 Hunter Beattie, Chair DocuSigned by: N" FMt*AA, 4/1/2022 DT1 8 3�Z@... Nancy Freeman, Tax Administrator/Clerk to the Board