Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM081695 Jefferson County Board of Equalization TELEPHONE: 385.9100 COURTHOUSE P.O. BOX 1220 PORT TOWNSEND, WASHINGTON 98368 ~ ~/'?~2;.:;;;:"~ ---=" t~,,- ;~/{ijf T-j l' ,"-~<f ~ cJ.. ~~t .>,:-0_" ~ It ' I~) . ,r-},_,.. ,-'-, " : _,: _ 'd'<:~" "'4,~ ~,', {~,' ~~' ~". " I ,""".;~,;~.,;, ~, ' 'h."::fl5IlI!rg, ", ili i(;;,r, it, ",' " ~"';',:r,f!,,I"',',;,'" ", ',: ','I ";'Yliii,~~i: .' '., "',il ,t 'i~.i1jl, d.",lIl" .,.,,':~~ ~I~'~~~~~, '~..~1.J.:' ~,~"""',~,~ ~-=< ------ JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF EQUALIZATION MINUTES AUGUST 16, 1995 William S. Marlow Richard A. Broders James A. DeLeo Chairman Vice-Chairman Member Chairman William S. Marlow called the meeting to order at 9:30 a.m, in the presence of Vice-Chairman Richard A Broders and Member James A DeLeo. HEARINGS Hein Family Trust Bernard and Norma Hein 9731 Stanford Avenue Garden Grove, CA 92641 BOE: 95-16-R PN: 947400068 Bernard and Norma Hein were present. Robert Kingsley was present on behalf of the Assessor's office. Chairman Marlow explained the hearing process and swore them in. Mrs. Rein stated they are requesting a reduction in their property value due to the fact that a neighbor has built an industrial type building which is totally out of character for the neighborhood they live in. The building detracts from the property and the Rein's would never have purchased it had they known such a building could be erected. Initially they had been told that the large building was going to be used for storage. The owners of the building are in the sheet metal business and have placed a business sign in their driveway. Equipment has been moved, in although they are not sure whether any business is being conducted. It is surprising to them that the County would allow this structure to be built in a residential area. Mr. Rein added that the building would negatively impact a potential sale of the property, Robert Kingsley explained that in appraisal terms, the metal building is referred to what is know as an "economic obsolescense". This is defined as, factors outside an individuals property boundaries, which affect the value of the individuals property. It is difficult to measure unless there are sales in the neighborhood which reflect a decrease in value as a result of the metal building. There have been no recent sales in the area. The property was assessed in 1992 for $101,370. The Rein's are requesting the value be reduced to $81,096. Mr. Kingsley believes the current assessment is too low for the 1995 real estate market and the amount the Rein's are requesting is extremely low and unjustifiable due to lack of evidence. n \..1 100% Recycled Paper BOARD OF EQUALIZATION MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 16, 1995 Page 2 Chairman Marlow swore in Assessor Jack Westerman prior to him testil)ring that he discussed this appeal with Mr. Kingsley since there have been three separate appeals regarding the issue of the metal building. He explained that in the appraisal profession it is very difficult to determine if "economic obsolescense" exists. It is a form a depreciation or a loss in value due to something that exists outside the property itself Some examples are the Hood Canal bridge blowing down, the location of net fish pens and the location of multiple housing. Many individuals believed that their property values were negatively affected as a result ofthese "economic obsolescence" factors, however, no evidence, such as sales, were found that indicated negative impacts. It has been their experience that even though there have been many cases where "economic obsolescense" occurs, typically no documented evidence can be found to substantiate concerns from individuals that feel their property has been devalued. After hearing the testimony of both parties the Board concurred that they would conduct an inspection of the property and make a determination at a later date. Gary & Mary Kaiser 333 Lawrence Street Port Townsend, W A 98368 BOE: 95-18-LO PN: 989704 202 Gary Kaiser was present. Assessor Jack Westerman and Appraiser Bob Shold were present on behalf of the Assessor's office. Chairman Marlow explained the hearing process and swore them in. Chairman DeLeo stated that due to his knowledge of the Kaiser's property he may excuse himself from this case during the testimony ifhe feels it is necessary. Both parties agreed. Mr. Kaiser stated they purchased the property in 1990 with the intention of constructing a small building to house his wife's retail business. They purchased the property for $77,000 which, at the time, they considered to be fair market value assuming they would have reasonable use of it. They subsequently invested approximately $7,000 more in plans and architectural drawings for the development. As they got further along in the process it became apparent that there would be more difficulties than they had anticipated, due to new regulations adopted by the City, in particular, the parking ordinance, which requires businesses to establish onsite parking. Providing parking on their property is not possible unless they locate it underneath the building. But even then, access is problem since the City will now allow access from Water street and Seafirst bank will not grant an easement through their property. An alternative to the parking issue is to pay the City for the use of existing parking spaces downtown. However, due to the cost, that option is not feasible. In addition, there are stringent earthquake and engineering standards that would need to be addressed and the Historical Preservation Commission determines what materials are acceptable in order to fit into the victorian setting. By the time the plans were completed it became too expensive to build on the property. It is not economically viable for them to do this project when there would be no return on their investment. The property was placed on the market and was finally leased by a local developer who managed to get an easement from the owners of the old Alaska Power building, to access the property. After spending a lot of time and money he also was unable to develop it due to engineering costs. The only recent sale is the purchase of waterfront property by the City of Port Townsend which they feel is not comparable since it was purchased by a public body for the public benefit. The Kaiser's believe the property has been devalued due to all the regulations making it difficult to develop and in turn difficult to sell. BOARD OF EQUALIZATION MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 16, 1995 Page 3 Assessor Jack Westerman stated that they realize the Kaiser's have had problems with trying to develop this property which is located downtown Port Townsend. It is an inside lot which faces on Water street and the City will not allow curb cutting and Seafirst Bank is adamant about refusing access from the back. These problems are unique to this property so if the Board decides to make an adjustment to the value they would not be forced to adjust other property values for equity purposes. Given all the restrictions it is difficult to determine what the fair market value is. The property value is currently assessed at $78,750 and the Kaiser's are requesting it be reduced to $28,750. The current assessment may be high but, despite the restrictions, it is the position of the Assessor's office that the property is worth more than the reduction the Kaiser's are requesting. An adjustment to the value could be made and if the property is developed at some time in the future, the adjustment can be removed. The property can be utilized. It's just a matter of having enough money to develop it the under the standards and restrictions of the City. After hearing the testimony of both parties the Board concurred to conduct an inspection of the property and make a determination at a later date. T. Kenneth Tang 1209 Fifth Avenue N. Seattle, WA 98109 BOE: 95-19-LO 95-20-LO 95-21-LO 95-22-LO 95-23-LO 95-24-LO 95-25-LO 95-26-LO PN: 947400040 947400041 947 400 047 947 400 048 947 400 049 947 400 057 947 400 058 947 400 059 T. Kenneth Tang and Assessor Jack Westerman were present. Chairman Marlow explained the hearing process and swore them in. Mr. Tang explained that he is requesting a reduction of his property value because an agreement exists between himself and two adjacent property owners that states his eight parcels are unbuildable. There is another agreement between Discovery Bay Associates, Mr. Gunstone and Mr. Broders that also prohibits the development of his lots. Chairman Marlow asked if Member Broders should excuse himself Member Broders stated he has no knowledge of any agreement. Both parties agreed that it would not be necessary for him to step down. Jack Westerman stated he is unaware of any agreement between Discovery Bay Associates, Mr. Broders and Mr. Gunstone but there is an agreement between Mr. Tang and two other adjacent property owners which states that the lots are subject to each party possibly putting septic systems on them, thereby making them unbuildable. Even though the agreement states that the lots are unbuildable, there is no documented evidence at the Health Department that indicate Mr. Tang's lots are unbuildable. Furthermore, the two adjacent property owners that entered into the contract with Mr. Tang are both deceased. This may mean that the contract is no longer binding. The Assessor's office is unable to make an adjustment to the value, unless, Mr. Tang can provide documentation that proves the property can only be used for septic purposes and are unbuildable. BOARD OF EQUALIZATION MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 16, 1995 Page 4 Chairman Marlow stated that it might be in Mr. Tang's best interest to consult an attorney about whether or not the contract is still binding since Mr. Tang is the only living party to the contract. Typically contracts and agreements are only as binding as the individuals which enforce them. Mr. Tang may be able to dissolve the agreement. Mr. Tang stated that even if that is the case there is still the other contract between Mr. Broders, Mr. Gunstone and Discovery Bay Associates which is in effect. The Assessor's office has never seen this agreement and Mr. Tang is unable to locate it. Mr. Tang recalls that the agreement was to prevent Discovery Bay Associates from contributing eflluent into the bay which would affect the Broders' and Gunstone's clam beds. After reviewing the testimony of both parties the Board concurred to conduct an inspection of the property and make a determination at a later date. Delmar and Georgia Evans 1529 Washington Street Port Townsend, WA 98368 BOE: 95-27-R PN: 989703 404 Delmar and Georgia Evans and Assessor Jack Westerman were present. Chairman Marlow explained the hearing process and swore them in. The Evans' property is located on the bluff on Washington street. Mr. Evans stated that included with their petition are photographs that depict the loss of 11 degrees of their view which has occurred as a result of a neighbor who has moved his house to the back of his property, closer to the bluff Of further concern, a neighbor on the opposite side has begun building a new house which will result in a loss of 17 degrees of their view in the other direction. The marine view is the reason they purchased the property and at that time, they believed that zoning in the area would prevent further development which would encroach on their view and they never thought that a house which had been there 120 years would or could ever be moved. There was also a10t of hidden damage in the house when they purchased it. Dry rot had been painted over, the gutters and deck were in bad condition and, the dirt floor garage is useless since the door will not open. None of this was apparent when they purchased the property and the appraisal that was done at that time, for financing purposes, notes that comparable property was used for the evaluation rather than conducting an inspection of the lot. The appraised value was $204,000, the purchase price was $199,000, the Assessor's valuation is $195,380 and the Evans' are requesting it be reduced to $175,842. In conducting research of tax records Mr. Evans noticed that in the past, inside lots were appraised less than comer lots. Now it seems as though they are all appraised the same. Mrs. Evans added that when they purchased the property they were misled by the Realtor. They were told that nothing could change that would affect the view. They thought they were getting a good deal since the Realtor indicated a neighboring house had sold for more than it actually did. They feel they paid too much for the property considering all the problems and misguidance. BOARD OF EQUALIZATION MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 16, 1995 Page 5 Assessor Jack Westerman presented the Board with an area map and stated that this property was assessed in 1992 and had been repainted and appeared to be in good condition. He is not as concerned about the view blocked by the house being moved as he is about the view blocked by the house being built. The foundation was layed approximately one year ago and has not proceeded since. So far the Evans' view has not been blocked. You can picture what it will look like but it is not physically there. Eventually it will be, but at this time there is no blockage. If an adjustment in value is made for the Evans' property the Board may want to adjust other properties as well, for purposes of equity. It is very difficult to determine how much of an adjustment to make since the new house will affect each lot to different degrees. In response to Mr. Evans' comment about interior lots versus comer lots, Mr. Westerman stated that a commercial area comer lot is worth more because of the exposure. However, with residential area comer lots it has been argued whether or not they are more valuable since twice the traffic exposure is considered a disadvantage, while the ability to control the degree of view is considered an advantage. This is why the Assessor's office does not assess residential area comer lots more than interior lots. After hearing the testimony of both parties the Board concurred to conduct an inspection of the property and make a determination at a later date. Chairman Marlow adjourned the meeting until August 17, 1995 at 10:30 a.m. Attest: /,,' 0) y \ L'~ ~~~~_ , Ii A- l . , ,'l4, LC Erin K. Lundgren, Clerk of the, oard JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARDOFEQUAL~ATION 1 r William J Marlow, Chairman r-b v~ / I/~ ~ard A. B~ders, Vice-Chairman