Browse
Search
Minutes 05-27-2014
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
Minutes - Approved
>
2010's
>
2014
>
Minutes 05-27-2014
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/24/2015 11:28:11 AM
Creation date
9/5/2014 8:34:00 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
5/27/2014
Meeting Type
Public Hearing
Document Type
Minutes
Document Relationships
Agenda - 05-27-2014 - Agenda
(Attachment)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\BOCC Agendas\2010's\2014\Agenda - 05-27-2014 - Quarterly Public Hearing
Agenda - 05-27-2014 - C1
(Attachment)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\BOCC Agendas\2010's\2014\Agenda - 05-27-2014 - Quarterly Public Hearing
Agenda - 05-27-2014 - C2
(Attachment)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\BOCC Agendas\2010's\2014\Agenda - 05-27-2014 - Quarterly Public Hearing
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
77
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
In Chapel Hill, we seem to value our privacy, our views, our aesthetics, more than some <br /> other areas of the state. Chapel Hill is not Burlington, where there is industrial and commercial <br /> development everywhere. Chapel Hill is - prides itself on maintaining wooded areas, natural <br /> areas. It is more valuable in Chapel Hill than anywhere else to maintain a beautiful view. <br /> Buyers will pay a premium for lots or homes with views of golf courses, or lakes, or mountains, <br /> or anything that's pretty to look at—a meadow. That view over there is very gorgeous. It's very <br /> serene. It's very pretty. I estimated the value of their property with the 2 acres, their home, <br /> which is about 2200 square feet, built in 1990, in its existing condition and its existing view, to <br /> be $365,000. I then went back and re-evaluated, using some of the same and some different <br /> comps to estimate what would that property be worth with the second view in the backyard, <br /> taking away the value of that view. And I came up with $330,000. That is a 10 percent decline <br /> in value for that particular property. I did the same thing with the lot, the vacant lot, and I <br /> estimated the value of that lot with the view to be $95,000 as it currently is. I estimated the view <br /> — I mean excuse me, the property with the solar farm view, as of the same day, to be $62,000. <br /> That's roughly a 35 percent decline in value. That is a vacant lot. It's gonna—the external <br /> obsolescence is going to impose a higher penalty on the vacant land than it does the total <br /> property. And then I believe my support has been submitted, both before and after, for both <br /> properties, and it was specific to the Cantwell's house. I didn't do an appraisal of any other <br /> property—just that property. <br /> David Rooks: Mrs. Davis, did you use the term external obsolescence? <br /> Pam Davis: Yes. <br /> David Rooks: And would you explain to the board what that means. <br /> Pam Davis: External obsolescence is an effect on a value of a property from something <br /> outside the property. Again, it could be anything. It could be - It could be anything. It could be <br /> a highway. It could be a power line. It could be a sewer plant, noise, view. It creates a <br /> negative impact on property value, but it isn't on the property itself. It's adjacent. <br /> David Rooks: So that's a term used in the appraisal business for something external to the <br /> property that has an impact on value. <br /> Pam Davis: Yes. <br /> David Rooks: Mrs. Davis, did you have occasion to form an opinion as to whether the use, as <br /> proposed by the applicant - and you have heard their application, read their application and <br /> heard their testimony tonight— Did you form an opinion as to whether the use as proposed, of <br /> the adjacent property for a solar farm, would maintain or enhance the value of the contiguous <br /> property that you appraised? <br /> Pam Davis: I have. <br /> David Rooks: And what is that opinion? <br /> Pam Davis: As I stated on this particular property I thought it was a 10 percent negative effect <br /> on the home with the 2 acres and a 35 percent effect on the vacant lot. <br /> David Rooks: Is it your opinion that the use as proposed, if it were installed, would not <br /> enhance or maintain the value of the contiguous property? <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.