2021_08_24 BOER MINUTES - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

DocuSign Envelope ID:67AF45A6-6792-466B-A530-32D705D517AA After discussion with the appellant,Nancy Freeman addressed the initial notices had information where he could access the comparable properties. However,in the May notices the information was not provided. The Board reviewed all documents and information provided by the appellant and the County. After deliberation and review,Mr. Beattie made a motion to table the appeal after Mrs. Freeman gets in touch with the appellant in regards to providing the County's comparable properties. Ms. Levine seconded the motion and the motion carried. Yes: 3 Noes: 0 BLASS PIN 9788612237 Emma Blass appeared before the Board to appeal the valuation of the property located at 502 Oteys Road, Chapel Hill. The current assessed value of the property is $678,600. A list of evidence follows: APPELLANT COUNTY 9788612237 Appeal 9788612237 County The appellant is requesting that the Board reduce the valuation citing the fact that the appellant bought this property six years ago for$575,000 and it had been on the market for a long time before purchase. The appellant stated the subject property has one major drawback,being close to US Hwy. 15-501which renders most of the lot unusable. Appellant provided relevant comparable sale prices of neighboring properties. One property similar in size, similar in age sold for$575,000 in January of 2021. The appellant stated that houses similar to subject property near Hwy. 15-501 stay on the market for a longer length of time and sell for lower prices due to noise and pollution. Bill Hiltbold represented the County and stated from the overhead GIS photograph of the subject,the residence is 251 feet from Fordham Boulevard and is separated by a wooded lot that will probably remain unimproved since connecting that lot to the city sewer system would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars.A letter from Orange Water and Sewer Authority was provided to the Board. The land value for the subject property is consistent with surrounding developed lots at$320,000. Mr. Hiltbold provided an analysis report for the Board and noted 803 Coker Drive is presented by the appellant as a comparable property. However, 803 Coker Drive is not a single family residence,but rather a two-to four family residence,which usually sell for more than single family residences since they are income-producing properties. 803 Coker Drive has only 2,487 square feet which is below the comparable range for the neighborhood and its land value is $95,000 less than that of the subject property. For these reasons, 803 Coker Drive is not considered a good comparable. 1 Penick Lane and 3 Buttons Road are better comparable properties since their living areas,grades, and land values are within close range of the subject. Both sold recently for well above the assessed value of the subject. Mr. Hiltbold stated that he visited the home and found the garage which had been sketched at 553 square feet is actually 691 square feet. Also,the rear deck has been enlarged from 204 square feet to 434 square feet. Mr. Hiltbold stated he corrected the sketch but recommends reducing the effective year built of the subject from 2004 to 2000. These changes reduce the building and total property value by$3,200 from $678,600 to $675,400.