2021_10_20 BOER MINUTES - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

DocuSign Envelope ID:C96AFABB-155D-4309-8C5B-76691BED5397 APPELLANT COUNTY 9799268800.001 Appeal 9799268800.001 County The appellant is requesting that the Board reduce the valuation citing the fact that the County is valuing the unit as a single unit rather than considering its value as part of an eight unit office building functioning as one economic unit. Mr. Pawlowski explained that would be impractical and maybe illegal to sell these individual units due shared space (restrooms,hallways, &common area)within these units. Mr. Pawlowski displayed a floor plan of the office building illustrating the layout of the eight units and stated that he did not place any weight on comparable sales for the individual units. Mr. Pawlowski reviewed leasing income by net leasable area versus gross building area and contended that the value of the property should first be determined for the property as a whole and then allocated to the individual units based on size. Cyle Anderson represented the County and stated that the subject property is an office condominium built in 1984 and the appellant is appealing the valuation on the basis that the income and expenses from 2018 to 2020 suggesting a lower valuation of$89,185 for the property. Mr. Anderson stated that upon review of this property by CCA,CCA weighted the sales comparison approach at 50% and the income approach at 50%for a reconciled valuation of$121,199. As a result of this review, Orange County recommends no change to the current valuation of$119,200. Mr. Gunn explained to the Board that the County has to value each unit individually as no plat combining the eight units into a single unit has been recorded. Mr. Pawlowski stated that the sales the County used in its sales comparison approach do not have the functional obsolesce that individual units of the subject property do due to the way the subject units have been reconfigured, and therefore,the indications of value for the subject units are too high. Chris Mashburn from CCA stated that if the Board could place 80%weight on the valuation from the income approach, an allocated value of$112,741 would be indicated for 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 adjust the value of the property to $112,741. Ms. Levine seconded the motion and the motion carried. Yes: 3 Noes: 0 600 FRANKLIN SQUARE LLC PIN 9799268800.002 Dave Pawlowski appeared before the Board on behalf of the appellant to appeal the value of the property located at 1829 E. Franklin Street Unit B, Chapel Hill. The current assessed of the property is $119,200. A list of evidence follows: APPELLANT COUNTY 9799268800.002 Appeal 9799268800.002 County The appellant is appealing the valuation on the basis that the income and expenses from 2018 to 2020 suggesting a lower valuation of$89,185.