2021_09_21 BOER MINUTES - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

DocuSign Envelope ID:829287C5-347E-4858-A71B-9A76931379611 APPELLANT COUNTY 9789309945 Appeal 9789309945 County Mr. Smith stated that the appeal was based on the denial of the Disabled Exclusion by the County on the grounds that the appellant was not the legal owner of the property as of January 1,2021. Mr. Smith noted that the appellant was the owner of the property as January 1,2021 based on the definition given in NCGS 105-277.1 subsection 1B,that an owner is defined as a person who holds legal OR equitable title, either individually or jointly. Thereby,based on the evidence presented by the appellant and under this statute,Mr.Newell is considered an equitable owner of this property and thereby is entitled to be granted the Disabled Exclusion. Anne Marie Tosco represented the County and stated that this is mainly a matter of first impression and has not been addressed under the tax statute. The law that that Mr. Smith has presented is a lot more rooted in real estate tax law and the law makes it clear that the type of recorded contract that is between Mr.Newell and Ms.Newell does create equitable title for Mr.Newell. The Board reviewed all documents and information provided by the appellant and the County. After deliberation and review,Mr. Beattie made a motion to grant the appellant the Disabled Exclusion. Ms. Levine seconded the motion and the motion carried. Yes: 3 Noes: 0 JANKOVICH PIN 9778523977 Rita Jankovich appeared before the Board to appeal the valuation of the property located at 128 Weatherhill Pointe, Carrboro. The current assessed value of the property is $285,000. A list of evidence follows: APPELLANT COUNTY 9778523977 Appeal 9778523977 County The appellant is requesting that the Board lower the valuation to $230,750($120,750 for the house and $110,000 for the land) citing that the appellant's property has the highest building value but the second smallest square footage compared to the surrounding properties. Kelly Wells represented the County and stated that the subject property is a frame house with 1,481 square feet living area built in 1984 and last sold in March 2017 for$287,000. Ms. Wells stated that the appeal is based on the values of improvements of neighboring properties and the appellant's supporting documentation states that the subject property is smaller,has less bathrooms, and is only 1-story compared to most of the other properties in the neighborhood. Ms. Wells stated that the Orange County Schedule of Values was applied to calculate the building value based on story height and number of baths,and in comparing the properties submitted by the appellant, the value per square foot for the subject property is comparable to the values of the surrounding properties. Therefore,based on the value per square foot and sales of similar properties in the area along with the recent 2017 purchase of the subject property,Ms. Wells recommended that no change be made to the current valuation of$285,000. 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 recommendation of no change to the current valuation.Mr.Myers seconded the motion and the motion carried.