Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM110899 1820 Jefferson Street PO Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 William S. Marlow, District 2 Richard A. Braders, District 3 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. HEARING W AIVERS/ASSESSMENT CORRECTIONS Member DeLeo moved to accept the following assessment corrections and hearing waivers: APPELT .ANT Kenneth Sanford Kenneth & Judith Stahl Norman Lyle Russell Trask Kenneth T. Golden APPEAL NO. BOE 99-44-R BOB 99-46-R BOE 99-50-R BOE 99-54-LO BOE 99-62-R PARCEL NO. 990400221 948 200 026 983 401 304 998600007 986401 103 Vice-Chairman Broders seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. HEARINGS Charles & Judy Thurman 72 Edna Place Port Ludlow, WA 98365 BOE: 99-60-R PN: 721162032 Mr. Thurman was present. Appraiser Peter Schuck represented the Assessor's office. After explaining the hearing process Chairman Marlow swore them in. The property under appeal is a residence on approximately 1.57 acres located at 72 Edna Place in Port Ludlow. Mr. Thurman stated that his property is located in the Thorndyke area where land slides have occurred. He is concerned with the stigma to his property as the result of the land slides and has researched the matter in a book by the Appraisal Institute titled "Real Estate Damages and Analvsis of Detrimental Conditions". VerY few properties in the area have sold. making it difficult to Phone 1360)385-9100 ! 1-800-831-2678 Fax (360)385-9382 jeffbocC@co.jefferson.wa.us BOARD OF EQUALIZATION MEETING MINUTES - NOVEMBER 8,1999 Page 2 determine the effects of the land slides on property values. Mr. Thurman believes the land slides have had a negative impact on the value of his property. Had he known how unstable the land was, he would not have built his home in that area. He contributes the land slides to high rains which increase the ground water, and to the land management practices of the property owners located on the hill above his property. The current assessment is $351,265 ($93,800 for the land and $257,465 for the improvements). Mr. Thurman estimates the value to be $200,000 ($50,000 for the land and $150,000 for the improvements). Mr. Schuck agreed that there have not been any sales in the immediate area. One of the reasons this property was not given an adjustment for the land slides is that the Board of Equalization may want to equalize all the properties located at the bottom of the hill. While he understands Mr. Thurman's concerns, there is no evidence on which to base a specific adjustment amount. After reviewing all the information submitted and hearing the testimony of both parties, the Board concurred to conduct an inspection of the property and make a determination at a later date. Morris & L10na James P.O. Box 1162 Port Hadlock, W A 98339 BOE: 99-61-R PN: 996400601 Mr. and Mrs. James were present. Appraiser Dennis Pownall represented the Assessor's office. After explaining the hearing process Chairman Marlow swore them in. The property under appeal is a residence located at 60 'C' Street in Port Hadlock. Mr. James stated that they feel that the land value is fair, but, the house is overvalued. The current assessment is $159,735 ($27,000 for the land and $132,735 for the improvements). The appellants estimate the value to be $125,900 ($27,000 for the land and $98,900 for the improvements). Their house was built in 1977. It has wood siding and a composition roof. He noted that they take very good care of their property. They arrived at their estimate of value by using a 5% increase per year. When the petition was submitted they did not have all their documented evidence, so Mr. James asked if at this time he could present sales of comparable properties in the area? Chairman Marlow asked the Assessor's representative Mr. Pownall if he objected to the appellant submitting the additional information? Mr. Pownall answered that he has no objection. The Board accepted the sales information. Mr. James added that their house is old, but, very well maintained. There are no properties comparable to their property which have sold for $159,735. Mr. Pownall presented sales of comparable properties which he used in his assessment. In his opinion, the appellant's property is the nicest property in the area which makes it difficult to find a comparable property sale. He explained how he valued the property by increasing the quality factor and reducing the effective age. The valuation was significantly increased from the previous assessment. Maybe, the property was under valued four (4) years ago. He believes that the current assessment reflects fair market value and that the appellant's estimate of value is too low. BOARD OF EQUALIZATION MEETING MINUTES - NOVEMBER 8,1999 Page 3 Mr. James stated that they should not be penalized for taking care of their property. He discussed the improvements made to the property and explained that the outbuildings located on the property do not have foundations and are not permanent fixtures. Additionally, property in Port Hadlock does not sell for as much as property in Port Ludlow or Kala Point. Mr. Pownall added that there was one (1) building on the property which he did not value at all. Discussion ensued regarding comparable property sales. After reviewing all the information submitted and hearing the testimony of both parties, the Board concurred to conduct an inspection of the property and make a determination at a later date. Bob Reed 320 Joan Street Port Ludlow, W A 98365 BOE: 99-63-R PN: 821333029 Mr. Reed was present. Appraiser Peter Schuck represented the Assessor's office. After explaining the hearing process Chairman Marlow swore them in. The property under appeal is a residence on approximately 3.69 acres located at 320 Joan Street in Port Ludlow. Mr. Reed believes that the land value is too high because 2/3 of the property is swampy. His house is a mobile home that he purchased for $15,000 and remodeled. It's not fair that he is penalized for fixing up his property. He presented photographs and discussed properties which he believes are comparable to, or better than his property, but, have lower valuations. He owns 4 acres adjacent to this parcel which he has had listed on the market for three (3) years at $50,000 which have not sold. The current assessment is $133,895 ($57,125 for the land and $76,770 for the improvements). Mr. Reed estimates the value to be $106,355 ($45,490 for the land and $60,865 for the improvements). Mr. Schuck stated that the property value was based on sales of comparable property in the immediate area. He noted that the property which Mr. Reed has listed on the market for $50,000 is currently assessed at $25,000. After reviewing all the information submitted and hearing the testimony of both parties, the Board concurred to conduct an inspection of the property and make a determination at a later date. Thomas E. Peters 714 Olympic Ridge Drive Port Ludlow, W A 98365 BOE: 99-86-R PN: 821355043 Mr. and Mrs. Peters were present. Appraiser Peter Schuck represented the Assessor's office. After explaining the hearing process Chairman Marlow swore them in. The property under appeal consists of a residence on approximately two (2) acres located at 714 Olympic Ridge Drive (Lot 7) in Olympic Ridge Estates in Port Ludlow. Mr. Peters stated that they realize that assessing property is a very complex process. They believe that the appraiser was not fully aware of the situation at the time the assessment was made. The property was purchased in 1994 for $100,000. In the past they had only purchased developed property, so this was the first time they had ever had a house built. Unknown to them, the plat as designed and approved by the County was flawed. The building site as designed on the lot was located adjacent to the easement line which caused BOARD OF EQUALIZATION MEETING MINUTES - NOVEMBER 8,1999 Page 4 problems due to setback requirements of the County when they began to build. The setback required taking 20 feet of the actual building site. This particular lot is the smallest in Olympic Ridge Estates, being only 75' x 100'. The setback requirement reduced it even more by making it 55' x 100'. They requested a variance which was denied by the Director of Community Development. Their only recourse was to go to the Olympic Ridge Community Association and petition, according to the bylaws, to increase the size of the building site. Originally they needed 20 feet for the house plan they had chosen, however, they were only allowed an additional 8 feet. Because of this they had to reduce the size of the house, change the orientation of the house, and reduce the overhang. Had they known all the trouble they were going to have with this lot, they would not have purchased it for $100,000. Not only is this the smallest lot in the development, but, it also has the greatest amount of easements restricting any further development. At the time they purchased the property they were told that the developer had built the roads to County standards with the expectation that Jefferson County would take over the roads when the required percentage of lots had been sold. The Road Improvement District #3 (RID) was formed in 1996. The original estimate given by the County to put in a road was $7,000. This was fine, however, after further research it was discovered that the roads were not built to County standards and the estimate jncreased to $14,000. With the cost doubling, there is little chance that their property will ever see an improved road. It will remain gravel. Additionally, there are building restrictions to insure the views are maintained, however, the restrictions have not been re-established and future building threatens the views of current residents. The current assessment is $332,465 ($113,000 for the land and $219,465 for the improvements). Mr. and Mrs. Peters estimate the value to be $312,965 ($93,500 for the land and $219,465 for the improvements). Mr. Schuck stated that Mr. and Mrs. Peters presented the same comparable property sales he used in his valuation assessment. He discussed the comparable property sales. Mrs. Peters stated that they are contesting the value based on the size of the building site and the restrictions placed on the property because of its size. After reviewing all the information submitted and hearing the testimony of both parties, the Board concurred to conduct an inspection of the property and make a determination at a later date. Donalda Porter P.O. Box 545 Molalla, OR 97038 BOE: 99-82-LO 99-83-LO 99-84-LO PN: 954 600 125 954 600 101 954 600 126 Ms. Porter and her daughter Pontine Rosteck were present. Appraiser Peter Schuck represented the Assessor's office. After explaining the hearing process Chairman Marlow swore them in. The property under appeal consists of approximately twelve (12) acres (lots 1 - 10 in Goodfellows Manhattan Beach Tracts) located at 3003 Thorndyke Road in Port Ludlow. Ms. Porter stated that she presented a letter dated March 6, 1992 from Greg Roats, Roats Engineering. In that letter Mr. Roats gives a breakdown of each lot based on his engineering study. She read a letter she had written to the Board as follows: "The mud flats were inspected by Peter Schuck of the Assessor's office and he advised me of the percentages he felt the taxes should be reduced because of the havoc created; drainage, topography, and various problems affecting the above property. In the winter of October 1994, Pope Resources hired a firm to harvest the timber on land that Pope owned, which is above and behind our lots 1-5. This logging firm clear-cut the land which caused mud slides and trees to fall on our lots. It took my son-in- law, with a chainsaw, three (3) days to saw up the fallen trees, and his family picked up and removed the debris on lots 2 and 3 so that they could pitch their tents and camp. A large part of the top of the former bank broke loose and slid halfway down the hill. The heavy rains of February 1999 repeated this slide, except, it was much BOARD OF EQUALIZATION MEETING MINUTES - NOVEMBER 8,1999 Page 5 worse. It covered a great deal more land area; about 300 feet to the south of lot 2. More of the top of the bank slid down, now obliterating the entire camp site. Also causing four (4) separate waterfalls; storm drainage from Pope's clear-cut land. The panel members of the Board of Equalization advised me several years ago that they do not pay any attention to who owns the property. That is opposite thinking from that of the personnel of the Assessor's office. It seems to me that if the Board of Equalization members are analyzing the lots, then they should use the same set of rules that the Assessor's office uses and vis-a-versa. It is my opinion, in this area of keeping citizens advised and the availability of computer technology, that each lot should be valued on its own merits, individually of other lots, and not all lumped together as the Assessor's office has been doing for the past seven (7) years. This means that I feel that the owners should receive an individual assessment for each lot. The families of the owners have camped at the property on lot 3 which used to be no bank. Now they cannot use any of the property until it is cleared. I have been paying 80% of the taxes since 1984; 60% ahead of that time. I have had two (2) separate engineer firms give me reports for development, and I paid 80% of the cost of the single lane access road. 1 do not plan to put any more money into the property, even for clean-up. I plan to wait and let the next generation pay for clean-up, etc. when I have left this world for where-ever. Mr. Stoker, an Attorney in Vancouver, Washington, admitted to practice in both Washington and Oregon, is representing me in negotiating with other owners in title, for an exchange of interests, for individual titles of ownership. He has yet to contact the other owners. I believe he is waiting for the decision of the Board of Equalization. The road is not passable for motorized vehicles, except heavy construction equipment. I would like the Board members to approve the lower figures that Mr. Schuck, Appraiser for the Assessor's office has assigned, following his personal inspection of the property on April 19, 1999. He has experience in residential construction and understands the problems facing the owners." The current assessment of the parcels are as follows: $136,485 for parcel #954 600 125; $45,495 for parcel #954 600 101; and $45,495 for parcel #954 600 126. The appellant did not provide an estimate of value. Chairman Marlow asked if the property is still owned in a tenancy-in-common? Ms. Porter answered yes, undivided interests. That is what the problem has been. She said it would really help if the lots were assessed separately. As it is now, it is unclear how the individual lots are valued. Mr. Schuck stated that he provided Ms. Porter with a breakdown of the property valuation. Ms. Porter replied that she received the breakdown, however, she feels a breakdown should be provided with the assessment and not lumped together as it usually is. In this day and age of computers, it should not be a difficult task. She then discussed the geotechnical reports. Mr. Schuck stated that there was a sale of property in the area which is comparable to lots 1,2, and 3 owned by the appellant. That sale was used as a basis for valuing those lots. He inspected the property again with the appellant after the slides had occurred. At that time he reduced the value of the property by 30% due to unstable geography. He did provide a breakdown for Ms. Porter's purposes, and while it is not a per lot value breakdown, it would not be difficult to extrapolate individual lot values. Sales of comparable property in the area were discussed. Mr. Schuck stated that all the lots are valued as a single parcel, even though the ownership is broken down. The Assessor's office does not normally break down the values as it did for Ms. Porter. He explained that since the property is viewed as a single parcel, the first 100 feet of water front is valued at the maximum front footage rate, and then the remaining feet of waterfront is considered excess front footage for which the property is given an adjustment. BOARD OF EQUALIZA nON MEETING MINUTES - NOVEMBER 8, 1999 Page 6 Chairman Marlow explained that if the property was not a single parcel, the value would be higher. The individual lots would all be valued at the maximum front footage rate. They would not receive an adjustment for excess front footage. Ms. Porter asked how the depth of the property is valued. Chairman Marlow explained that typically, waterfront is valued strictly on front footage rates. Depth is usually not valued except maybe as a building site. The value or emphasis is put on the waterfront. Mr. Schuck stated that with the exception oflot #10 which is the primary building lot, all the other lots were given a 55% reduction for excess front footage. He noted that he also gave an adjustment for depth. In answer to a question from Chairman Marlow, Ms. Porter stated that she owns 80% of the property and the other 20% is owned by three (3) other separate individuals. She added that a boundary line adjustment may be done in order to divide the property into separate individual ownerships. Mr. Schuck asked Ms. Porter what part of his assessment does she think is inequitable or would not represent current market value? He asked if she thinks that he is over assessing the property and that it's not worth $200,000? Ms. Porter asked Mr. Schuck to clarify ifhe means the entire property value? Mr. Schuck answered, yes, the entire property. Ms. Porter stated that no, she does not think he is over assessing the property at $200,000. What has bothered her is not being able to get individual lot assessments, so she would know the value of each lot. Mr. Schuck noted that if a boundary line adjustment is done and the lots are recorded separately, than the values of each lot will increase. There will be no reduction of 55% for excess front footage. Discussion ensued regarding various valuation methods. After hearing the testimony of both parties, the Board concurred to conduct an inspection ofthe property and make a determination at a later date. Marjorie Thorne 1499 NW Bucklin Hill Road Bremerton, WA 98311 BOE: 99-87-LO PN: 950200631 Ms. Thome was present. Appraiser Peter Schuck represented the Assessor's office. After explaining the hearing process Chairman Marlow swore them in. The property under appeal is approximately two (2) acres located in Trails End 3'" Addition, block 6, lot 23, South Beach Drive in Port Ludlow. Ms. Thorne wrote on her petition that the property is in a critical area due to slides and other marginal slopes. She outlined on the map where the slides occurred and presented photographs of those areas. Trees on the property were illegally cut which also caused slides to the neighbor's property. A copy of a "Binding Advance Determination, Findings and Conditions of Approval" for critical area review case #CAR99-0361 applied for by Ms. Thome through the Jefferson County Permit Center was presented. This determination outlines the restrictions and conditions placed on the property. The property is currently assessed at $101,850. Ms. Thome's estimate of value is $54,000. BOARD OF EQUALIZATION MEETING MINUTES - NOVEMBER 8, 1999 Page 7 Mr. Schuck explained that the Binding Advance Determination presented by the appellant is dated November 2, 1999 and did not exist at the time the property was assessed. He is unable to comment on the report at this time as he would need to review it further to determine what impact it has on the property value. Sales of comparable properties in the area were discussed as they relate to the valuation of the appellant's property. Ms. Thome stated that she applied for the Binding Advance Determination to find out whether or not the property could be developed. She has owned the property since 1973 and she never intends to build there. It is only useful as a recreational site. Mr. Schuck added that many individuals are now going through this Binding Site Plan application process at the Permit Center in order to determine what can be done with a piece of property prior to closing a sale. 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. Member DeLeo excused himself from the meeting at this time and was not present for the following hearing. Edward L. Mathurin 154 Maxview Drive Port Ludlow, WA 98365 BOE: 99-88-R 88-89-LO PN: 721093027 721 093 025 Mr. Mathurin was present. Appraiser Peter Schuck represented the Assessor's office. After explaining the hearing process Chairman Marlow swore them in. The property under appeal consists of a residence on approximately )12 acre located at 154 Maxview Drive in Port Ludlow. Mr. Mathurin stated that his property is located in an area where land slides continue to occur. The hill located directly behind his property slid again in March of 1999. His property was assessed in January of 1999, prior to the slide. Two homes located on the hill above his property were condemned as a result of the slides. The owner of the bare land property adjacent to Mr. Mathurin's property was going to build and has now decided to sell. A Realtor told the owner not to sell the property for at least two (2) years, so the property is most likely not saleable due to the land slides. Another neighbor with property located to the northeast of Mr. Mathurin's property, has also decided not to build due to the slides. He presented and discussed photographs ofthe land slide debris which is within 20 feet of his house. In the event of another slide, Mr. Mathurin is concerned about the rock retaining wall on the 45 degree sloped hillside, 150 feet directly above his house, built by the neighbor located on the hill. The wall is 60 feet wide, 12 feet high and consists of rocks measuring 2 Y, feet in diameter. No mortar was used and it is not keyed into the hillside at all. He noted that he complained to the Permit Center because it is not a safe wall. He also talked with the company that designed the wall and they did not provide any earthquake standards. The engineer who designed the wall did not respond to Mr. Mathurin's question as to whether he would stand at the bottom of the hill directly below the wall during a 7.1 earthquake. Mr. Mathurin is quite certain he would not stand there with 200 tons of rock placed on such a steep slope. In addition, the County required the owner of that property to sign a waiver prior to issuance of a permit, which releases the County of any liability in the event the rock wall collapses. The slides have devalued his property and the assessment should be decreased not increased. The current valuation of parcel #721093027 is $283,895 ($40,000 for the land and $243,895 for the improvements). Mr. Mathurin estimates the value to be $177,000 ($30,000 for the land and $147,000 for the improvements). The current assessment of parcel #721 093025 is $21,250. Mr. Mathurin estimates the value of that parcel to be $18,000. BOARD OF EQUALIZATION MEETING MINUTES - NOVEMBER 8,1999 Page 8 Mr. Schuck stated that the Assessor's office feels the Board should equalize the values of the properties in the area below the slides. There are many engineers with different views on the rock retaining wall. Mr. Mathurin stated that there have not been any properties in the area which have sold recently. After hearing the testimony of both parties, the Board concurred to conduct an inspection ofthe property and make a determination at a later date. Meeting adjourned. Af:: ~iL ~.~M1c1cJ1ef\j Erin K. Lundgren, Cle~ J the Bii'ard JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF EQUALIZATION J.--,-~--------- -"- .-- William S. Marlow, Chairman YA4g~an ~~~Lf:",