Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM020317ok Dave Garing Mike Smith Henry Krist Dave Garing 1820 Jefferson Street P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 Henry Krist MINUTES February 3, 2017 Michael Smith Chairman Vice -Chairman Member Chairman Dave Garing called the meeting to order at 9:30 a.m. in the presence of Vice -Chairman Michael Smith and Member Henry Krist. ACCEPT PETITION WITHDRAWAL Member Krist moved to accept the following petition withdrawal. Vice -Chairman Smith seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. NAME James & Gloria Randall William & Nancy Zingheim 6281 Oak Bay Road Port Ludlow, WA 98365 APPEAL NO. BOE: 16-17-R HEARINGS BOE: 16-16-R PARCEL NO. 990 600 108 PN: 921 324 014 William Zingheim was present. Appraiser John Pray represented the Assessor's Office. After explaining the hearing process, Chairman Garing swore in all parties. Under appeal is the land and improvement value of property located at 6281 Oak Bay Road, Port Ludlow. The property was assessed as of January 1, 2016 and is currently valued at $285,649 ($201,360 for the land and $84,289 for the improvements). The appellant estimates the value to be $151,000 ($95,000 for the land and $50,000 for the improvements). Mr. Zingheim testified that his property did have, but no longer has the comparable value of similar homes on waterfront acreage. He stated that changes in State and County shoreline and wetland regulations (requiring a 150 foot setback from any body of water, wetland, or stream) have diminished the value. He also testified that the County legally permitted the home, shop, and septic field but then subsequently designated all of those same structures to be non - Phone (360)385-9100 Fax (360)385-9382 jeffbocc@co.jefferson.wa.us Board of Equalization Minutes — February 3, 2017 Page: 2 conforming, significantly limiting the ability to move, alter, expand, or construct improvements. Additionally, since he purchased the property in 1994, State and County regulations have been established that impose significant restrictions on the current use, future improvements, and limited potential of the entire unimproved property. He outlined these restrictions as: 1. The Shoreline Management Plan implemented a 150' setback from the shoreline (approximately 16% of the subject property) which was applied to all county waterfront properties with the exception of Port Townsend. He indicated he took issue with this lack of equity but could live with the 150' shoreline buffer. 2. In addition to the shoreline setbacks, the county determined the property between the home and the shoreline to be a wetland. This designation combined with wetland setback requirements expanded the perimeter of the buffer zone to include the home and shop, producing restrictions covering approximately 60% of the property. 3. As a result of the wetland designation mentioned above, the county declared the appellant's home, shop, and septic field to be "non -conforming" improvements. The Appellant indicated he was told by county officials that they would not issue a permit for an addition to his home and that his ability to obtain county permits for future alterations or improvements would be unlikely. 4. Furthermore, the owner of the subject property is required to comply with 150' setbacks on either side of the full-time stream (Piddling Creek) that runs through the length of the property effectively prohibiting future improvements (buildings, gardens, fences, landscaping, clearing, etc.) on almost all of the remaining uplands. The appellant stated that approximately two years ago he placed his property on the open market with a local Real Estate broker. The broker believed that comparable sales of waterfront properties justified a listing price of $345,000. One offer was received for $330,000 but quickly rescinded when the prospective buyer became aware of the overlapping restrictions placed on the property. He also attempted to sell the property himself. He was able to generate reasonable interest that "vaporized" when prospective buyers learned of the county restrictions and limitations placed on the property. Appraiser Pray presented three sales that he identified as comparable property, a tax parcel map showing the location of the comparable property sales, photographs of the subject property, a copy of the appraisal worksheet for the subject property, and the first page from Redfin's real estate data base of the three comparable property sales. He stated that the appellants' property consists of a manufactured home and a large shop. Board of Equalization Minutes — February 3, 2017 Page: 3 He discussed the following comparable properties: Comparable Property #1 Parcel No.: 901 271 000 Location: 2337 West Valley Road, Chimacum Assessed Value: $130,063 Sale Date: March, 2016 Sale Price: $199,500 Comparable Property #2 Parcel No.: 901 342 012 Location: 3985 West Valley Road, Chimacum Assessed Value: $127,825 Sale Date: July, 2016 Sale Price: $228,500 Comparable Property #3 Parcel No.: 901 353 011 Location: 365 Egg & I Ridge, Chimacum Assessed Value: $149,559 Sale Date: September, 2016 Sale Price: $300,000 Appraiser Pray testified that each comparable property sale included a manufactured home of similar square footage and age with some updates. Two of the three sales included similar acreage, and he said that none of the properties were encumbered by waterfront or wetland restrictions similar to that of the appellant's property. He provided photographs of the appellant's property. He asked the appellant if any improvements have been made to the manufactured home? The appellant responded that he purchased the manufactured home as a shell to be able to construct improvements to his liking. He asked the Assessor's representative if any of the comparable property sales had wetlands? Appraiser Pray responded that he is not aware of any wetlands associated with the comparable properties. He agreed that wetlands and setbacks are a problem, however the property has a home and a large shop and it is valued as such. If the land was vacant the value would decrease. No reduction has been made for the location. He explained that he valued the appellant's property by the local waterfront foot multiplier ($2,100 per waterfront foot) and gave it a negative 35% adjustment for a muddy shoreline. He also assigned the property a negative 15% adjustment because the ground between the house and shoreline is wet. He did not feel it necessary to negatively adjust the upland acreage. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Garing closed the hearing. The Board will make a determination at a later date. Board of Equalization Minutes — February 3, 2017 Page: 4 Fredrick & Paula Davis 143 Baldwin Lane Port Ludlow, WA 98368 BOE: 16-19-R PN: 990 600 107 Fredrick Davis was present. Appraiser John Pray represented the Assessor's Office. After explaining the hearing process, Chairman Garing swore in all parties. Under appeal is the land and improvement value of property located at 143 Baldwin Lane, Port Ludlow. The property was assessed as of January 1, 2016 and is currently valued at $393,589 ($50,000 for the land and $343,589 for the improvements). The appellants estimate the value to be $357,105 ($50,000 for the land and $307,105 for the improvements). The appellant testified that a market evaluation was performed on his property that resulted in an assessed value ranging from $360,000 to $390,00. Written documentation of the market analysis was not provided to the Board. He discussed the following comparable property sales provided on his appeal form: Appellants' Comparable Property #1 Parcel No.: 990 600 112 Location: 63 Baldwin Lane, Port Ludlow Sale Date: June, 2015 Sale Price: $270,000 Aonellants' Comparable Property #2 Parcel No.: 990 900 008 Location: 201 Montgomery Court, Port Ludlow Sale Date: September, 2015 Sale Price: $325,000 Appraiser Pray stated the appellants' home was built in 2007. The improvements consist of the following: • Main living area = 2,671 square feet; Finished basement = 483 square feet; Basement/garage = 940 square feet; and Various balconies and decks Appraiser Pray discussed the following comparable property sales: Comparable Property #1 Parcel No.: 990 400 450 Location: 432 Rainier Lane, Port Ludlow Assessed Value: $342,959 Sale Date: November, 2015 Sale Price: $345,000 Board of Equalization Minutes — February 3, 2017 Page: 5 Comparable Property #2 Parcel No.: 990 400 336 Location: 92 Tyee Lane, Port Ludlow Assessed Value: $368,969 Sale Date: December, 2015 Sale Price: $390,000 Comparable Property #3 Parcel No.: 934 800 008 Location: 81 Baldwin Lane, Port Ludlow Assessed Value: $407,346 Sale Date: September, 2016 Sale Price: $304,500 Comuarable Property #4 Parcel No.: 990 700 043 Location: 624 Rainier Lane, Port Ludlow Assessed Value: $336,992 Sale Date: December, 2016 Sale Price: $420,000 Discussion ensued regarding the difference between the appellants' property and the comparable properties. Appraiser Pray stated that improvements have been made to the appellants' home. He discussed the appellants' comparable property sales. He feels there are enough market sales that support the current assessed value. The appellant stated that the sale of comparable property on Tyee Lane is'/z acre larger than his property. The three (3) property sales that occurred on Baldwin Lane sold for less than $300,000. Neighboring properties that are selling for more than $300,000 have a water view. The home was built in 2007 and at that time it was assessed at $200,000. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Garing closed the hearing. The Board will make a determination at a later date. Robert Lambe BOE: 16-15-R PN: 990 603 226 P.O. Box 65483 Port Ludlow, WA 98365 Robert Lambe and his son, Jesse Lambe were present. Appraiser John Pray represented the Assessor's Office. After explaining the hearing process, Chairman Garing swore in all parties. Under appeal is the land and improvement value of property located at 671 Pioneer Drive, Port Ludlow. The property was assessed as of January 1, 2016 and is currently valued at $314,147 ($80,000 for the land and $234,147 for the improvements). The appellant estimates the value to be $284,850 ($80,000 for the land and $204,850 for the improvements). Board of Equalization Minutes — February 3, 2017 Page: 6 The appellant stated he bought the property and constructed the home in 1990. The home consists of 3 bedrooms, 2.5 bathrooms and a primary living area of approximately 1,482 square feet. During construction the wrong materials were used in the framing which limits heat retention and increases the cost to heat the home. He has no intention of selling the property. He testified that currently he has a fair view of the water. Jesse Lambe stated the comparable properties provided by the Assessor's representative have been improved. He stated that no improvements have been made to the home or property since it was built in 1990. Appraiser Pray stated that the appellant's home is dated and chose comparable properties that were similar. He said the view from those properties are not as good as the appellant's view. He discussed the following comparable property sales: Comparable Property #1 Parcel No.: 990 603 232 Location: 810 Pioneer Drive, Port Ludlow Assessed Value: $314,080 Sale Date: June, 2016 Sale Price: $325,000 Comparable Property #2 Parcel No.: 990 600 314 Location: 731 Pioneer Drive, Port Ludlow Assessed Value: $274,403 Sale Date: September, 2016 Sale Price: $312,000 Comparable Property #3 Parcel No.: 990 603 209 Location: 50 Navigator Lane, Port Ludlow Assessed Value: $269,146 Sale Date: October, 2016 Sale Price: $297,500 The appellant testified that he recently replaced the roof and skylights at a cost of $22,000. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Garing closed the hearing. The Board will make a determination at a later date. Board of Equalization Minutes — February 3, 2017 Page: 7 ADJOURNMENT Member Krist moved to adjourn the meeting at 10:50 a.m. Vice -Chairman Smith seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. ATTEST: %.kms Leslie R. Loc Clerk of the Board JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF EQUALIZATION Dave GariR, hairm Michael Smith, Viceu 4& Henry Krist, Member