Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
APPROVED 5/10/2010 <br /> <br />OC Board of Adjustment – 3/8/2010 Page 51 of 86 <br />1 2 3 <br />4 <br />5 6 7 <br />8 <br />9 10 11 <br />12 <br />13 14 15 <br />16 <br />17 18 19 <br />20 <br />21 22 23 <br />24 <br />25 26 <br />27 <br />28 <br />29 30 <br />31 <br />32 <br />33 34 <br />35 <br />36 <br />37 38 <br />39 <br />40 <br />41 42 <br />43 <br />44 <br />45 46 <br />47 <br />48 <br />49 50 <br />51 <br />52 <br />53 54 <br /> <br />Dawn Brezina: That is about right then. <br /> <br />Rob Maitland: In a minute, you will see Mr. Tolley, who is also an appraiser will tell you that the average appreciation was <br />about 5.8 on whole prior to those store opening and after that it was 3.6 so there is definitely a drop off. <br /> <br />James Carter: Mr. Maitland, when you look at information on 2610 Wade Hampton Drive, you mentioned the fact that you <br />one was 8.27 and 3.77, where did you get this data from? <br /> <br />Rob Maitland: Which house are we talking about? <br /> <br />James Carter: 2610 Wade Hampton Drive. <br /> <br />Rob Maitland: Yes. What Mr. Tolley did was calculated it. The first range from 9/02/1987 to 10/12/1993 where Mr. Knight <br />says it is a 16.7% difference between 64,000 and 63,000. We calculated what that annual rate of appreciation would be and <br />that is 2.7%. Then from October 1993 to October 1997 that four year period where the house went from $63,000 to $85,000 <br />again that is a 34.9% accumulative appreciation but we calculated that over that period that house went up 8.7% per year. <br />Then the next time it was sold, in 2005, the house went up another $25,000 which is 29.4% in the aggregate, however, if you <br />calculate it over that period of time from 1997 to 2005, the annual rate of return is only 3.7% so that house went from 1993 to <br />1997 for that four period clicking along at 8.7% and then sometime, and again, this is my whole argument, sometime after the <br />Wal-Mart and Home Depot opened, the average rate was 3.7%. Here is my argument; these numbers aren’t really worth the <br />paper they are printed on because you can’t compare them to what the rest of the county was doing at the same time. <br />Maybe 3.7% was good, although I don’t think it was. But even if you accept their numbers, they work for us in every example <br />and Mr. Tolley will testify that in a minute. <br /> <br />Jeffrey Schmitt: Any other questions? Mr. Knight, sort of along the lines that Mr. Maitland is at here, we have statistics and <br />we can get them cumulative and we can get them annualized, we can get them on a linear reggression. There is 15 different <br />ways we can look at this. What did you look at? Did you look at the percentages, what did you focus on after you <br />aggregated this data? <br /> <br />Vic Knight: To see whether there is an appreciation or not. <br /> <br />Jeffrey Schmitt: Whether the numbers were continuing to go up? <br /> <br />Vic Knight: Appreciation as opposed to depreciation. If there is some depreciation in value…. <br /> <br />Jeffrey Schmitt: So the numbers continued to go up, not whether the rate of increase was declining, accelerating, staying the <br />same, whatever, none of the variables that Mr. Maitland is trying to interject? <br /> <br />Vic Knight: The standard, as I understood it, is that any particular impact that Special Use Permit might have, if it would have <br />a negative impact, that needs to be discovered so if it maintains or enhances then the level of appreciation wasn’t the subject <br />of what I was trying to discover. <br /> <br />Jeffrey Schmitt: Negative in your case means it falls below zero? <br /> <br />Vic Knight: Correct. <br /> <br />Jeffrey Schmitt: Not that the rate of growth declines from what it was in some previous time? <br /> <br />Vic Knight: Correct. <br /> <br />Jeffrey Schmitt: There is virtually no way to isolate one particular element in looking at the aggregate price changes that you <br />have gotten. You have got changes in the economy, changes in interest rate, changes in inflation; these homes are not <br />homogeneous so the data is what it is. Sort of an average in the midst of all these things.