Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM081402 1820 Jeft'eraon Street P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 James A. DeLeo WUllam 8. Marlow RIchard A. Broden MINUTES AUGUST 14,2002 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 Elsie Lemonds/Joan Lemonds 1341 Lemonds Drive (!uilcene, VVA 98376 BOE: 02.37.R 02-38-R PN: 601032019 601 032 015 Joan Lemonds was present. Appraiser Peter Schuck represented the Assessor's office. Chairman Marlow explained the hearing process and swore them in. Under appeal are two parcels, #601032019 which is 50'x400'in size and #601 032 015 which is 100'x400' in size. Both parcels have homes constructed on them and are located along Lemonds Drive, Quilcene. Ms. Lemonds stated that her uncle purchased the property in 1943. In the 1950's he built a road to the property which is accessed from Coyle Road. When the road was constructed a portion of it had to cross state owned land. At that time the State did not require or even issue permits for access across state land. It was just understood that being a resident of the State of Washington gave you the right to cross state land. In 1972 one property owner in the area was able to obtain an easement granted by the State for access to their property. Since that time the State's policy has changed and now easements across state land are not granted to private property owners. As a result they do not have legal access to their property. The only access to their property is by using the easement which was granted to their neighbors. She noted that several years ago she tried to get a mortgage using this property as collateral and was turned down due to the lack of ingress and egress. Banks and mortgage companies will not loan money against property which does not have a legal easement or access. For this reason the assessed value is too high. Ms. Lemonds feels that the value of parcel #601 032019 should be reduced from $290,750 ($171,300 for the land and $119,450 for the improvements) to $225,000 ($125,000 for the land and $100,000 for the improvements) and that the value of parcel #601 032 015 should be reduced from $216,280 ($125,300 for the land and $90,980 for the improvements) to $185,000 ($100,000 for the land and $85,000 for the improvements). Mr. Schuck stated that the Washington State Department of Natural Resources has taken the position that private property owners may have to relocate their roads which currently cross state owned lands. At this point he is unable to oredict what the ramifications will be. He reviewed the sales which have occurred in the area Phone (360)385-9100 Fax (360)385-9382 jeffbocC@Co.jefferaoll.wa.ua Board of Equalization Minutes - August 14, 2002 Page: 2 since 2001. All were sales of properties which must be accessed by crossing land owned by the Washington State Department of Natural Resources. Like the appellant's property, the properties which sold also have no legal access. The current assessed value of the appellant's property is supported by sales. In answer to a question from Chairman Marlow, Mr. Schuck stated that it is unknown whether the easement granted to the neighbors by the State is in perpetuity with the property or if it was granted for the duration of the life of the property owner with whom it was negotiated. After reviewing all the information submitted and hearing the testimony of both parties, Chairman Marlow closed the hearing. The Board will conduct a physical inspection of the property and make a determination at a later date. Todd Miller & Viviann Kuehl 1110 E. Quilcene Road Quilcene, W A 98376 BOE: 02-47-LO PN: 701184 010 Mr. Miller and Ms. Kuehl 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 300 feet of bare land, waterfront property located at 1110 E. Quilcene Road, Quilcene. Mr. Miller stated their main issue with regard to this appeal is that a portion of this parcel is a swamp and under water. Regardless of the water problems, the size of the parcel is most likely too small to be considered buildable due to the lack of space for an alternative septic system and based on shoreline setbacks. Behind this parcel they own another parcel which they are not appealing and where their home is located. A seasonal creek runs through the parcel where their home is located and drains onto this parcel resulting in swampy conditions and the presence of cattails. Currently ilie property is assessed at $68,000. The appellants estimate the value to be $25,000. Mr. Schuck stated that as a "stand alone" parcel it is probably over valued. However, since the appellants own the adjacent parcel, the two parcels were valued together and 50% of the total value was attributed to each parcel for equity purposes. The methodology of valuing the two parcels together has been used for at least 8 years. Regardless of the methodology used to assess the property, the combined total value of both parcels is reflective of market value or what the property would sell for on the open market. There have been a large amount of sales in this area. In the past it could be argued that the mud flats and swampy properties did not have much value. However, recent sales do not indicate that mud flats and swampy properties are worth less than other waterfront properties with sand or rock beaches. Mr. Schuck then reviewed the comparable property sales he used to value the appellant's property and explained the front footage rates that were also used. Ms. Kuehl does not feel the properties used by the Assessor in valuing their property are comparable. Mr. Miller does not agree with the methodology of valuing the two parcels together. They could sell this parcel as a separate parcel, so it should be valued separately. Front footage rates and how they are applied to waterfront property was explained by Mr. Schuck. Mr. Miller added that this parcel is the low point of all the properties along the waterfront and water drains onto it. Even if this parcel was combined with their other parcel, he would still question the value. Board of Equalization Minutes - August 14, 2002 Page: 3 After reviewing all the information submitted and hearing the testimony of both parties, Chairman Marlow closed the hearing. The Board will conduct a physical inspection of the property and make a determination at a later date. James Reid 25863 Tytler Road Poulsbo, WA 98370 BOE: 02-14-R PN: 701093004 Mr. Reid was present. Appraiser Peter Schuck represented the Assessor's office. After explaining the hearing process Chairman Marlow swore them in. Under appeal is approximately 100 feet of waterfront property on which a house is constructed. Mr. Reid stated that he disputes the value of the improvements as he has not made any improvements to the property except to replace the roof and the deck. Mr. Schuck explained that the word "improvements" is a term used by the Assessor's office which means "buildings" or "structures" on the land. The increase in the improvement value was based on inflation and the amount houses were selling for as indicated by the market. It does not mean that any more work was done on the house. Mr. Reid noted that the term "improvements" ought to be changed to prevent so much confusion. Mr. Schuck agreed. Mr. Reid stated there are no utilities to his property and should not be compared to other properties that do have utilities and other amenities. For this reason he believes the current valuation of $112,020 ($62,000 for the land and $50,020 for the improvements) is too high. He estimate the value to be $99,565 ($60,000 for the land and $39,565 for the improvements). Mr. Schuck explained how he valued the property and stated that he took into consideration the fact that the property has no utilities. In comparison to other properties in the area, Mr. Reid's property did not increase in value as much as other properties did. This is largely due to the distance his property is located from utilities. There were no sales of property similar to the appellant's property, so he used what sales he had in the area. After reviewing the sales he noted that if the Board determines an adjustment in value is necessary, they should consider equalizing the values of three other parcels in the area in order to insure equity. After reviewing all the information submitted and hearing the testimony of both parties, Chairman Marlow closed the hearing. The Board will conduct a physical inspection of the property and make a determination at a later date. Meeting adjourned. At~: . EM~t: Clerk