BOA minutes 030810 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

APPROVED 5/10/2010 OC Board of Adjustment – 3/8/2010 Page 66 of 86 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 Tom Tolley: Absolutely. Rob Maitland: Twenty four percent if I remember correctly. Tom Tolley: I testified at a number of appeal hearings. Rob Maitland: I think we are getting to the end. If you looked at that map, I noticed that none of the houses that was closest to Wal-Mart, which would be closest to the Southerland situation, have sold, would that tell you anything? Tom Tolley: I think, once again, you are just working with what you have. I think another impact there, which I don’t want to minimize but something that hasn’t been talked about is development potential. That is another reason for trying to use something like the other two situations that have lots that are three, four, ten, fifteen acre parcels that have development potential. The neighborhoods selected are already established subdivisions which do not have any additional development potential. Rob Maitland: What about liquidity? What about the ability for two houses equally situated, same exact house, one sitting next to a dog kennel, one sitting next to Wal-Mart and one not and the one that is not can sell in 30 days and the other one perhaps, has to sit there for two years. Tom Tolley: The days on the market, a lot of people consider that a negative, if I have got to take 100 days to sell my house versus the 30 days to sell my house then that would be considered a negative but at the same time, I would even argue that I am surprised that actually happened because once again, I think traffic is the bigger issue at the Wal-Mart and the entrance to that subdivision is the same. Rob Maitland: As opposed to the sound of barking dogs? Tom Tolley: As opposed to the sound of barking dogs but at the same time my point is, since the entrance did not change, then I am surprised there haven’t been more sales sprinkled through the neighborhood. I found it surprising because of the traffic impact but I don’t think once again, you use what you have but it was surprising to me that all the sales were on there then. Rob Maitland: In your professional, do you concur with the attorney for the North Carolina Real Estate Commission that the dog kennel is a material fact? Tom Tolley: I am also a broker and I can tell you that is a material fact. Rob Maitland: A negative fact. Tom Tolley: You don’t have to say it is negative; it is a material fact which implies there is something about this property that people, if they know about it, may or may not want the property. That implies that it is negative. Rob Maitland: Again, two properties similarly situated one that has a material fact that has to be disclosed and one that doesn’t. Common sense would tell you what? Tom Tolley: Common sense it that lowers your pool of potential buyers to people who don’t care if it is a dog kennel there. Rob Maitland: Doesn’t necessarily affect your sales price? Tom Tolley: No. Rob Maitland: But it is a negative impact. Jeffrey Schmitt: Questions by the board?