2021_08_24 BOER MINUTES - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

DocuSign Envelope ID:67AF45A6-6792-466B-A530-32D705D517AA The appellant perceived comparable properties provided in the appeal are more realistic due to location within the highway compared to the comparable properties provided by the County appraiser. Mr. Beattie asked if there were any comparable properties nearer to the subject property. Mr. Hiltbold provided neighborhood sales such as 403 Whitehead Circle which sold for$1,150,000,410 Whitehead Circle which sold for$712,500, and 413 Whitehead Circle which sold for$875,000. Mr. Hiltbold noted that all three sales are within the same grade and finished area range as the subject and their values were in line with the value given to 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 value of$675,400. Ms. Levine seconded the motion and the motion carried. Yes: 3 Noes: 0 BURRIDGE PIN 9788342110 Keith Burridge appeared before the Board to appeal the valuation of the property located at 6 Briarbridge Lane, Chapel Hill. The current assessed value of the property is $817,400. A list of evidence follows: APPELLANT COUNTY 9788342110 Appeal 9788342110 County The appellant is requesting that the Board reduce the valuation citing the fact that despite the correction of the living space from an informal appeal,the building valuation of the house has remained at$483,200, more than$100,000 higher than houses in the area of equivalent or larger size. The appellant provided a number of comparable properties to support this request. Bill Hiltbold represented the County and explained that with an informal appeal processed in April this year,the appellant submitted a fee appraisal listing the second floor as 990 square feet of low ceiling non- living area, so no second floor was indicated on the sketch. Mr. Hiltbold stated that in processing this appeal,he went inside the residence and found two bedrooms and a bath on the second floor with 562 square feet under a 7 foot ceiling and labeled this area as US 30 (upper story 30%of the main area below). Mr. Hiltbold stated the home does not have a basement. There is a slab for heating and air conditioning equipment but the area is open to the crawl space and not suitable for dry storage.Mr. Hiltbold stated he changed the BSU7 (75%unfinished basement)to MSRY(masonry foundation). The garage is under the addition on the back. Mr. Hiltbold relabeled this area as MA(main area) over BG (basement garage) and deleted the lump sum value for a basement garage. Corrections to the sketch now calculate living area at 3,031 square feet. Mr. Hiltbold explained that the discovery of the second floor living area will raise the value of the building. Mr. Hiltbold then referred the Board to an analysis report which contained three good comparison properties within neighborhood 7162. 305 W. University Drive is smaller than the subject with no half bath that sold for$560,000. 3 Briarbridge Lane is still smaller than the corrected subject and sold for$659,000. The third and best comparison is 215 W. University Drive which has the same land value, same grade, similar finished area, and one more bath than the subject and sold for$860,000. After