Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021_11_18 BOER MINUTES DocuSign Envelope ID:9A676531-F35E-4E66-B48C-3107043DBD2E MINUTES Board of Equalization and Review Date:November 18,2021 Board Members Present: Hunter Beattie, Chair Barbara Levine,Regular Leon Meyers,Regular Staff Members Present:Nancy Freeman, Tax Administrator Roger Gunn,Real Property Appraisal Manager Chad Phillips,Deputy Tax Assessor Kelly Wells, Chief Appraiser Cyle Anderson,Appraiser Chris Mashburn,Appraiser with CCA Vrinlli Flores,Administrative Assistant SCHEDULE: 9798345972.002 East 54 Office Retail LLC NOT APPEARING 9798345972.003 East 54 Office Retail LLC NOT APPEARING 9873251980 Cates Creek Apartments LLC NOT APPEARING 9893410649 William Geoffrey Brantley Trust NOT APPEARING 9834096567 William Douglas Westbrook NOT APPEARING 9864807203 Daniel Boone Ltd. APPEARING 9864807203LI Daniel Boone LLC APPEARING 9874016614 Boone Square Inc. APPEARING 9844978308 Efland PMHP LLC NOT APPEARING 9788276637 Mill House Capital Holdings LLC APPEARING Chair Hunter Beattie called the meeting to order at 1:01 PM. East 54 Office Retail LLC PIN 9798345972.002 Alexander Carr 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 1480 Environ Way, Chapel Hill. The current assessed value of the property is $32,255,300. A list of evidence follows: APPELLANT COUNTY 9798345972.002 Appeal 9798345972.002 County DocuSign Envelope ID:9A676531-F35E-4E66-B48C-3107043DBD2E Cyle Anderson represented the County and stated that the subject property is an office condominium building built in 2008 and the appellant has not provided any supporting documentation for their opinion of value of$24,000,000 for the property. Mr. Anderson stated that upon review of this property by CCA, CCA weighted the sales comparison approach at 25%and the income approach at 75%for a reconciled valuation of$31,338,775 for the property. As a result of this review, Orange County recommends applying an E02 economic modifier to the property for a revised valuation of$31,610,200. The Board reviewed all documents and information provided by the appellant and the County. After deliberation and review and in the absence of any evidence from the appellant,Mr. Beattie made a motion to accept the County's revised valuation of$31,610,200 for the property. Ms. Levine seconded the motion and the motion carried. Yes: 3 Noes: 0 East 54 Office Retail LLC PIN 9798345972.003 Alexander Carr 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 1205 Environ Way, Chapel Hill. The current assessed value of the property is $17,538,600. A list of evidence follows: APPELLANT COUNTY 9798345972.003 Appeal 9798345972.003 County Cyle Anderson represented the County and stated the subject property is a retail condominium building built in 2008 and the appellant has not provided any supporting documentation for their opinion of value of$12,000,000 for the property. Upon review of this property by CCA, CCA weighted the sales comparison approach at 25%and the income approach at 75%for a reconciled valuation of$13,578,160.As a result of this review, Orange County recommends applying an E23 neighborhood modifier for a revised valuation of$13,504,700. 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 revised valuation of $13,504,700. Mr. Meyers seconded the motion and the motion carried. Yes: 3 Noes: 0 DocuSign Envelope ID:9A676531-F35E-4E66-B48C-3107043DBD2E Cates Creek Apartments LLC PIN 9873251980 Alexander Carr 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 Waterstone Park Circle,Hillsborough. The current assessed value of the property is $36,494,000.A list of evidence follows: APPELLANT COUNTY 9873251980 Appeal 9873251980 County Cyle Anderson represented the County and stated the subject property is a 270-unit apartment complex built in 2015 and the appellant is requesting a valuation of$33,412,000 for the property based on 2020 income and expenses for the property. Mr. Anderson stated that upon review of this property by CCA, CCA weighted the sales comparison approach at 45%and the income approach at 55%for a reconciled valuation of$36,745,844 for the property As a result of this review, Orange County recommends applying an E01 neighborhood modifier for a revised valuation of$36,129,700. 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 revised valuation of $36,129,700. Ms. Levine seconded the motion and the motion carried. Yes: 3 Noes: 0 William Geoffrey Brantley Trust PIN 9893410649 William Brantley 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 6709 Mt. Hermon Church Road, Durham. The current assessed value of the property is $1,539,700.A list of evidence follows: APPELLANT COUNTY 9893410649 Appeal 9893410649 County The appellant requests a valuation of$1,200,000 for the property based on an appraisal with an effective valuation date of January 13,2021 and an opinion of value of$1,200,000 for the property. Cyle Anderson represented the County and stated that the subject property is a warehouse building with office space, and after reviewing both the property and the appraisal,the County recommends reducing the grade from B to C+10 and reducing the effective year built from 2005 to 1997. These changes would result in a revised valuation of$1,194,200 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 revised valuation of $1,194,200 for the property. Mr. Meyers seconded the motion and the motion carried. DocuSign Envelope ID:9A676531-F35E-4E66-B48C-3107043DBD2E Yes: 3 Noes: 0 Westbrook PIN 9834096567 Doug Westbrook 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 6622 E. Washington Street,Mebane. The current assessed value of the property is$254,200. A list of evidence follows: APPELLANT COUNTY 9834096567 Appeal 9834096567 County The appellant's document states an opinion of value of$145,000 for the property and requested that an appraiser visit the property to view the condition of the buildings. Cyle Anderson represented the County and stated that the subject property is a warehouse building/shop, and after reviewing the condition of this property,the County recommends reducing the effective year built to the actual year built for both buildings and applying a 15%economic depreciation to the warehouse building. These changes would result in a revised valuation of$150,000 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 revised valuation of$150,000 for the property. Ms. Levine seconded the motion and the motion carried. Yes: 3 Noes: 0 Efland PMHP LLC PIN 9844978308 Samuel E. Coleman elected not to appear before the Board on behalf of Efland PMHP LLC and requested that the submitted documentation serve as the appeal. The appellant is appealing the value of the property located at 218 Mt. Willing Road, Efland. The current assessed value of the property is $460,200. A list of evidence follows: APPELLANT COUNTY 9844978308 Appeal 9844978308 County The appellant stated an opinion of value of$210,000 based on an appraisal provided with this appeal having an effective valuation date of January 1, 2021 and an opinion of value of$240,000 for the property. The appellant also states that mobile home park property only contains 14 spaces whereas the County currently has sixteen spaces listed on the property record card for the subject property. DocuSign Envelope ID:9A676531-F35E-4E66-B48C-3107043DBD2E Cyle Anderson represented the County and stated that after reviewing the subject property and the appellant's appraisal,the County recommends decreasing the number of mobile home spaces to 14 spaces and applying an E70 economic modifier to the property which would result in a revised valuation of $240,700 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 valuation of$240,700. Mr. Meyers seconded the motion and the motion carried. Yes: 3 Noes: 0 Mr. Beattie made a motion to recess the meeting until 2:30 PM. Mr. Beattie called the meeting back to order at 2:29 PM. Daniel Boone Ltd. PIN 9864807203 James E. Hopper appeared before the Board to appeal the value of the property located at 378 S. Churton Street,Hillsborough. The current assessed value of the property is $2,182,800. A list of evidence follows: APPELLANT COUNTY 9864807203 Appeal 9864807203 County The appellant is requesting that the Board reduce the valuation citing the fact that the cost to manage, maintain, and insure the subject property is more than the income derived made from the property. The appellant stated that the subject property was previously an occupied steak house and a motel/apartment complex,but the steak house was demolished in 2020 and the motel/apartment complex was demolished within the last 30 days due to it being a liability. The appellant gave no opinion of value for the property but stated that their taxes increased 34% over the past year. Cyle Anderson represented the County and stated the subject property is a 4.94-acre commercial tract, and after reviewing the subject property and comparable sales in the area,the County recommends applying 95%functional obsolescence to the vacant motel/apartment building located on this tract and increasing the market adjustment on the land to -50%. These changes would result in a revised valuation of$1,584,000 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 valuation of $1,584,000. Ms. Levine seconded the motion and the motion carried. Yes: 3 Noes: 0 DocuSign Envelope ID:9A676531-F35E-4E66-B48C-3107043DBD2E Daniel Boone LLC PIN 9864807203LI James E. Hopper appeared before the Board to appeal the value of the property located at 370 S. Churton Street,Hillsborough. The current assessed value of the property is $267,500. A list of evidence follows: APPELLANT COUNTY 9864807203LI Appeal 9864807203LI County The appellant is requesting that the Board reduce the valuation citing the fact that the cost to manage, maintain, and insure the subject property is more than the income derived from the property. The appellant gave no opinion of value for the property. Cyle Anderson represented the County and stated that the subject is leasehold improvements consisting of a restaurant building and parking lot constructed in 1990. Mr. Anderson stated that upon review of this property by CCA, CCA weighted the sales comparison approach at 50%and the income approach at 50% for a reconciled valuation of$290,380 for the property.As a result of this review, Orange County recommends no change to the property's current valuation of$267,500. 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 recommendation of no change in valuation for the property. Mr. Meyers seconded the motion and the motion carried. Yes: 3 Noes: 0 Boone Square Inc. PIN 9874016614 James E. Hopper appeared before the Board to appeal the value of the property located at 110 Boone Square Street,Hillsborough. The current assessed value of the property is $7,736,500.A list of evidence follows: APPELLANT COUNTY 9874016614 Appeal 9874016614 County The appellant stated that taxes have increased 58%and is requesting that the Board reduce the valuation based on the main anchor tenant business being down due to the pandemic and a couple of other tenants trending the same way with rents getting worse and tenants not being able to keep up with paying rent. The appellant gave no opinion of value for the property, Cyle Anderson represented the County and stated that the subject property is a 19.22 acre retail tract, and after reviewing the subject property, the County recommends increasing the market adjustment on the land to -75%. Which would result in a revised valuation of$4,200,000 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 valuation of $4,200,000 for the property. Ms. Levine seconded the motion and the motion carried. DocuSign Envelope ID:9A676531-F35E-4E66-B48C-3107043DBD2E Yes: 3 Noes: 0 Mr. Beattie made a motion to recess the meeting until 3:30 PM. Mr. Beattie called the meeting back to order at 3:29 PM. Mill House Capital Holdings LLC PIN 9788276637 Adam Jones appeared before the Board on behalf of Mill House Capital Holdings LLC to appeal the value of the property located at 301 Pritchard Avenue, Chapel Hill. The current assessed value of the property is $520,600. A list of evidence follows: APPELLANT COUNTY 9788276637 Appeal 9788276637 County The appellant is requesting that the Board reduce the valuation to $385,000. The appellant stated that along with the subject property,he also owns 209 Pritchard Avenue and 211 Pritchard Avenue but is only appealing 301 Pritchard Avenue. The appellant stated that the increase in value for the subject parcel was higher than expected and not consistent with the increases of the other two parcels. Mr. Jones complaint is there should not be a disparity of a 4%, 5%, and 33%increases in value when all homes are similar in style. Kelly Wells represented the County and stated that the subject property is a duplex built in 1922 with 1,984 finished square feet and is located in the Northside Conservation District in Chapel Hill. Ms. Wells stated that the properties the appellant used for comparison are single-family homes, and research by the County indicates that lots utilized for Two-to-four Family residences or Rooming Houses should be valued from 10%to 70%higher than lots utilized for Single Family residences. Ms. Wells stated that after conducting a site visit on October 7,2021,the County recommends correcting the sketch by adding a 5x8 patio with roof that is not on record and adding air conditioning at 100% for the residence. These changes would result in an increase of the valuation from$520,600 to $525,700. The appellant stated the patio has been there since 1950, and the home is a single family home,not a duplex. The appellant stated that the initial 2021 valuation was $385,600,which he still feels is high but more appropriate than the current valuation and the studio apartment was part of the original construction. The appellant stated he bought the three parcels in 2020, and he has seen major increases in their valuations,well over what he paid for the three properties. Ms. Wells stated there is two separate dwelling units within the house, one being a studio apartment attached to the house making this a two-to-four family property. Mr. Meyers stated that he was familiar with the Northside Conservation District restrictions and the subject property was best classified as a single family residence with an efficiency studio. Mr. Gunn stated that if the County changes the property type from a two-to-four family residence to a single-family residence and removes the market adjustment on the property,the land value would be reduced to $225,000(the value for a non-conforming lot in the subject neighborhood) and the building DocuSign Envelope ID:9A676531-F35E-4E66-B48C-3107043DBD2E value would be reduced to $179,900 for a total overall valuation of$404,900 for the property. Mr. Gunn stated that when the recommended value of$404,900 is added to the valuations of the other two parcels, the cumulative valuation would closely approximate the price in which the appellant paid for all three parcels in June 2020. 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 valuation of$404,900 for the property. Mr. Meyers seconded the motion and the motion carried. Yes: 3 Noes: 0 Having heard all of the appeals scheduled on this date,Mr. Beattie made a motion to adjourn this meeting at 4:02 PM. The motion was seconded by Mr. Meyers and the meeting was adjourned. �D.o'cuSSiig'n^ed by, w C\V�1/�N ✓�l`L Hunter Beattie, Chair 4/1/2022 DocuS//i/gned by: Vrinlli Flores,Recording Secretary 4/1/2022