Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM120203 1820 Jefferson Street P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 James A. DeLeo WUliam S. Marlow Richard A. Broders MINUTES DECEMBER 2, 2003 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. ASSESSMENT CORRECTIONS/PETITION WITHDRAWALS Vice-Chairman Broders moved to accept the following assessment corrections and petition withdrawals: Name George Carlin William J. Eldridge Philip & Eleanor Fergusson Larry McKeehanlPeter Mercer, Trustees Bank of America/Clara Fields Trust Appeal No. BOE 03-52-LO BOE 03-57-R BOE 03-59-R BOE 03-76-R BOE 03-91-R Parcel No. 990 600 241 961 802 006 821 081 017 921283004 977 700 076 Member DeLeo seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. HEARINGS Dale & Lisa Wilde 419 North Bayview Drive Port Ludlow, W A 98365 BOE: 03-92-LO 03-93-R PN: 921332002 921 332 032 Mr. Wilde was present. Appraiser Robert Kingsley represented the Assessor's office. After explaining the hearing process Chairman Marlow swore them in. Two parcels are under appeal. Mr. Wilde stated his home is situated on 5 acres ofland identified as parcel 921 332 032 located at 419 North Bayview Drive, Port Ludlow. It consists of approximately 350 feet of waterfront on Mats Mats Bay adjacent to the quarry. His main contention is the value of the land and the value of the shop. Additionally, there is a tree located on the property which contains an eagle nest, thereby, requiring an eagle manage plan for this parcel Phone (360}385-9100 Fax (360)385-9382 jeffbocc@co.jefferson.wa.us Board of Equalization Minutes - December 2, 2003 Pajte: 2 which places many restrictions on its use and development. Specifically, there is a 100 foot buffer zone around the tree which contains the nest, preventing the cutting of any trees within that zone. There is also a required buffer zone from the shoreline, and while he is able to cut tree limbs, he is unable to remove any trees within that zone. The property has a nice view, but it is sheltered. To some extent he feels this limits the property value when compared to properties that have a more expansive view. He disagrees with the Assessor's methodology in valuing the property because it does not adequately address the negative impacts ofthe eagle management plan, shoreline setbacks or proximity to the quarry. His property is pie shaped and is not valued equitably with the neighboring parcels which are better configured. Through litigation Mr. Wilde appealed the decision mandating the eagle management plan and was unsuccessful in overturning that decision. The "no cut" buffer zone will remain on the property as long as there are eagles present in Olele Point territory. This is contrary to his understanding of the plan. He feels he paid too much for the property because he purchased it with one expectation and ended up with another. He also had plans to divide the property which were prevented by a moratorium in the area. His house and a combination shop/accessory dwelling unit (ADU) are situated on this parcel. While the shop is well constructed, it only cost approximately $50.00 per square foot to build and he believes it is overvalued. Current the property is assessed at $1,164,320 ($359,475 for the land and $804,845 for the improvements). Mr. Wilde estimates the value is $900,000 ($200,00 for the land and $700,000 for the improvements). The second property under appeal identified as parcel 921 332 002 is approximately 28 acres of bare land located at the end of Olele Point Road, Port Ludlow. Mr. Wilde shares divided interests in this property with his wife and four children. This property is also subject to an eagle management plan because the same eagle now inhabits this property. The eagle has three nests in the area, but is currently inhabiting this property. The third nest is located on a neighboring parcel. At the time he purchased the property the eagle nest was located in a tree on another parcel according to the Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR), however, the DNR had made an error in identifying the exact location, and upon conducting a survey it was discovered that the tree with the eagle nest was actually located on his property. The issues with this parcel include the restrictions of the eagle management plan and the fact that it is undeveloped. He is currently in litigation with the County regarding the County's assertion of certain rights relating to his application for a logging permit. Because this is an active nest, the current restrictions of the eagle management plan effectively exclude 400 feet of the waterfront from timber harvesting or any other activities. This property should not be valued as waterfront with a view when he is unable to remove any trees and the restrictions are so severe. With regard to the acreage value for the back portion of this property, he does not believe it adequately reflects the impacts of the restrictions. In addition, the property is considered a wetland. Mr. Wilde was naive when he moved here and had no knowledge of the restrictions which are inherent in Jefferson County. The County is not pro- development. He purchase this property as a long term investment. Since the time of his purchase, the eagle has appeared, the Shoreline Act appeared and the Unified Development Code appeared. All of which have severely impacted the value of his property. Currently the property is assessed at $469,155 (land only). Mr. Wilde estimates the value is $257,000. Mr. Kingsley stated parcel 921 332032 on which Mr. Wilde later built his house, was purchased by Mr. Wilde for $320,000 in 1996. It is assumed that the property has appreciated in value since then. The value per front foot for the land is consistent with the method used to value other waterfront properties. He acknowledged that the adjustments are subjective and noted that no two parcels are exactly the same. The goal of the Assessor's office is to value property at an amount that it would sell for if placed on the open market. Board of Equalization Minutes - December 2, 2003 Pajte: 3 As for parcel 921 332 002, it appears as though there are many issues with that property. Mr. Wilde paid $540,000 for Y, interest in this parcel. Regardless of the divided interest ownership of the property, the Assessor's office must value it as if it were fee simple ownership. He noted that the value was given a 15% reduction due to the restrictions of the eagle management plan. The Board can review that percentage to determine if it is adequate. Discussion ensued regarding market indicators for impacts relating to eagle habitat and the quarry. 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. George Herion 10716 S. Baltimore Road Spokane, VVi\ 99205 BOE: 03-87-LO 03-88-LO PN: 921 332030 921 332 039 Mr. Herion was not present. Appraiser Robert Kingsley represented the Assessor's office and was previously sworn in by Chairman Marlow. Under appeal is parcel 921 332030 which is five acres of bare land and parcel 921 332039 consisting of2.5 acres of bare land, both located on Mats Mats Bay in Port Ludlow, adjacent to the property discussed during the previously held appeal hearing (see minutes above; Dale & Lisa Wilde). On the petition form for parcel 921 332030 Mr. Herion wrote: "Property does not equate to waterfront property. Property has a reverse slope, high bank, heavy tree and undergrowth of brush, and finally, an eagle nest on the eastern edge which restricts development." He wrote on the petition form for parcel 921 332039, "Due to reverse slope there exists a drainage problem on this low ground area. The acreage is completely overgrown with brush and only accessible by clearing a path. There is absolutely no possibility for any view if allowed to develop." In a supplement letter dated October 2,2003, Mr. Herion provided a listing of properties which are currently "for sale" on the open market which he feels supports his request for a reduced value. A second supplement letter dated November 20, 2003 was submitted by Mr. Herion in which he writes: "In my petition dated 4 September 2003 I estimated the value of parcel 921 332030 to be $135,975. In block 4 of the petition I stated some specific reasons why I felt the Assessor's value was not the true and fair market value. In addition I would like to state that the rate of valuation was based on a running foot of waterfront property to be $1,300. I consider this to be in excess, due to the high bank, set back from the frontage and the reverse slope where the building site is limited. In my petition dated 4 September 2003 I estimated the value of parcel 921 332 039 to be $8,500. I again stated some specific reasons why I felt the Assessor's value was not the true and fair market value. As a separate parcel it has absolutely no growth value as shown in my statement. It is wet year round due to a man made bank on the west side and the reverse slope on the east side which channels water to lay in state only and to run from north to south when it exceeds its low level capacity. This piece of property could be totally cleared and it would still have no view. It only acts as a buffer between parcel 921 332030 and the private property to the west. I have reviewed many MLS listings from Port Hadlock to Port Ludlow and have found none that really fit as comparables to my two parcels. With the limitations stated in my petition dated 4 September 2003 and the additional information in this letter to the Board I ask that you give favorable consideration to my petition." The properties are currently assessed at $207,960 for parcel 921 332030 (land only) and $20,775 for parcel 921 332039 (land only). Board of Equalization Minutes - December 2, 2003 Pajte:4 Mr. Kingsley presented a map of the properties in the area which identifies the two sales of the neighboring properties purchased by Dale and Lisa Wilde. Mr. Wilde paid $540,000 for Y2 interest in property located to the north of Mr. Herion's property and Mr. Wilde paid $320,000 for the property located to the south. Another property sale in the amount of$19,000 indicates parcel 921 332039 is also valued equitably. A reduction in value of25% was also given due to the questionable utility of that parcel. The waterfront parcel 921 332030 was given a 15% reduction in value due to the impacts of the eagle nest and a reduction of 37% for excess front footage. Mr. Kingsley believes the assessment of these parcels reflect fair market value. In closing he presented another sale to show that there is a market for property in the area. After reviewing all the information submitted and hearing the testimony of the representative for the Assessor's office, Chairman Marlow closed the hearing. The Board will conduct a physical inspection of the property and make a determination at a later date. George & Shirley Lucas, Trustee c/o Jeffrey Lucas 2527 Cliff Side Lane, Apt. Y-204 Gig Harbor, W A 98335 BOE: 03-89-LO 03-90-LO PN: 921 332 029 921 332 035 Jeffrey Lucas was present on behalf of George and Shirley Lucas. Appraiser Robert Kingsley represented the Assessor's office. After explaining the hearing process Chairman Marlow swore them in. Under appeal is parcel 921 332029 which is five acres of bare land and parcel 921 332035 consisting of2.5 acres of bare land, both located on Mats Mats Bay in Port Ludlow, adjacent to the properties discussed during the two previously held appeal hearings (see minutes above; Dale & Lisa Wilde and George Herion). Mr. Lucas stated that he has reviewed many property listings and was only able to locate one property which is also undeveloped and subject to an eagle management plan, comparable to their waterfront parcel 921 332 029. The comparable property was listed on the market for approximately 2 years at $150,000. It was finally taken offthe market because ofthe problems associated with the eagle management plan. Mr. Lucas' parents purchased this property in the late 1970's when development regulations allowed 5 residences per acre. Current development regulations now allow only 1 residence per five acres in this area. He feels the nearby quarry also negatively impacts the property value. The only access is a private road maintained by the neighbors. In 1992 the appellants began the difficult process of establishing a road through their property to access the waterfront as a picnic area and to enjoy the view. In 1995, after meeting with State and Federal agencies they were finally allowed to bulldoze a rough road partially through the property, but not to the high-bank waterfront. Currently there are three eagle nests in the area. Three times in the last eight years trees have blown down, and the eagle relocates its nest. This changes the eagle protection zone as well as the configuration of any building site. Additionally, the 200 foot shoreline setback requirement limits building sites. If they ever want to sell this property they will have to disclose any rule, regulation, structural problem, etc. that may affect the value and use ofthe property. He presented a rough drawing outlining the location of the trees in the area which contain the eagle nests. A potential buyer will have a difficult time trying to locate a building site which does not interfere with the 200 foot shoreline setback and the eagle protection zone. Even if a building site could be found, no construction is allowed between the time period of January 1 and August 15. Someone looking to buy waterfront property is going to want to purchase property which is not burdened with these types of problems. This parcel is currently valued at $207,960 (land only). Mr. Lucas estimates the value to be $159,970. Board of Equalization Minutes - December 2, 2003 Pajte: 5 The 2.5 acre parcel 921 332 035 is purely a wetland, stated Mr. Lucas. He does not believe a building site could be found on the property. In his opinion, the current assessed value of$20,850 (land only) should be reduced to $8,500. Mr. Kingsley noted a reduction in value of25% was given to the 2.5 acre parcel 921 332035 due to questionable utility. The waterfront parcel 921 332 029 was given a 15% reduction in value due to the impacts of the eagle nest. He acknowledged that it will be very expensive to develop the properties in this area and due to the restrictions the property owners may not be allowed to build a house in their most desired location on the property. The 15% reduction in value is the Assessor's office attempt to account for the negative impacts. 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. Marilyn Low Fite 1706 HoweU Place Seattle, W A 98122 BOE: 03-80-LO PN: 021333004 Mr. and Mrs. Fite were present. Appraiser Robert Kingsley represented the Assessor's office. After explaining the hearing process Chairman Marlow swore them in. Under appeal is approximately 4 acres of undeveloped waterfront property located off of East Marrowstone Road, (Marrowstone Island), Nordland. Mr. Fite stated their 4 acres of property is high-bank waterfront which extends approximately 400 feet. Technically the property is "waterfront", but, the height of the bank is close to 100 feet with no access to the beach, making the property "waterview". A cemetery is located to the north of the property so it is probably not the most desirable residential location. Additionally, there is no development of property in the area because there is no potable water. The Fite's obtained a letter from a local Realtor who is very familiar with property on Marrowstone Island. In the letter the Realtor recommends a reduction in value due to the lack of water. Without water this property is not very saleable. Currently the property is assessed at $361,800 (land only). No estimate of value was provided by the appellants. Mr. Kingsley agrees with the appellants and the local Realtor that the property is overvalued and should be reduced due to the lack of water. 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. Member DeLeo was not present for the remainder ofthe meeting. Board of Equalization Minutes - December 2, 2003 Pajte: 6 CORRECTED DETERMINATION ORDERS Robert & Kathleen Purvis 100 Harbor View Place Port Ludlow, W A 98365 BOE: 03-83-R PN: 998 600 005 Chairman Marlow noted that upon further review of the information submitted for this appeal, the Board discovered that it did not address the removal of the mobile home off of the property thereby, eliminating any improvement value for parcel 998 600 005. The Board maintains the land value of $30,000 is fair and equitable. Vice-Chairman Broders moved that the Board's previous decision to sustain the assessed value be reversed and that the Assessor be overruled and the improvement value of $2,425 be removed, resulting in only a land value of $30,000. Chairman Marlow seconded the motion in the absence of Member DeLeo. The motion carried. (See also minutes of October 28, 2003 and November 24, 2003) Paul Taylor-Smith 63 Scott Court Port Ludlow, W A 98365 BOE: 03-58-R PN: 821162013 Chairman Marlow noted that upon further review of the information submitted for this appeal, the Board discovered that it mistakenly thought the Assessor had incorrectly calculated the square footage of the house when in fact the square footage calculations of the commercial appraiser were incorrect. Therefore, the Board's previous decision to reduce the value of parcel 821 162013 was based on an incorrect appraisal and erroneous information. Vice-Chairman Broders moved that the previous decision to overrule the Assessor be reversed and that the assessed value of $554,760 ($228,200 for the land and $326,560 for the improvements) be sustained. Chairman Marlow second the motion in the absence of Member DeLeo. The motion carried. (See also minutes of November 3, 2003 and November 24, 2003) HEARINGS - Continued Michael Schereu 100 Blueberry Hill Road Port Ludlow, W A 98365 BOE: 03-73-R PN: 821334063 Mr. Scheren was 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 house on a lot located at 100 Blueberry Hill Road, Port Ludlow. Currently the property is assessed at $225,390 ($28,700 for the land and $196,690 for the improvements). Mr. Scheren feels the value is extremely high based on road noise from Highway 104 located one block from his home. The optimal time to sell a house is during the spring and summer months and into the fall. However, during that time is when the road noise increases due to the additional visitors to our area. The noise is phenomenal and makes it impossible to hold a normal conversation outside. It is constant day and night. His bedroom faces the highway and at night he is unable to leave his bedroom window open. He usually has to use earplugs in order to sleep. In reviewing his assessment information he discovered some discrepancies and noted that the County's records indicate he has a three-bedroom home, however, when they remodeled their house they decided not to put a closet in the third bedroom thereby making it a "bonus" room. The house only has two Board of Equalization Minutes - December 2, 2003 Pajte: 7 bedrooms. The other discrepancy in the County's records is the foundation being labeled as "perimeter". When he initially purchased the property the house was 800 square feet in size constructed on pier blocks and had one bedroom and one bathroom. For protection he put skirting around the foundation. The house was later remodeled and additions were made at which time a standard perimeter foundation was poured for the new construction only. It may not make much of a difference on his valuation, but he wants to make sure it is correct in the County's records. Without objection from the Assessor's representative, Mr. Scheren presented a copy of an addendum to an appraisal of his neighbor's property dated August 12, 1991 wherein it indicates road noise was considered a factor in determining value at that time. He noted that a number of homes in the area are valued in the $200,000 range. His neighbor's property was for sale for five years at $220,000 and it did not sell. Property in this area is not selling because of the environment. Mr. Pownall noted that when Mr. Scheren submitted his petition form the property was valued at $225,390 ($28,700 for the land and $196,690 for the improvements). At that time Mr. Scheren's property was in the "Single Family Exemption" program which allows the remodel portion (up to 30% of the improvement value) to be tax exempt for a period up to three years. The three year exemption expired in 2003 at which time Mr. Scheren's property was removed from the exemption program resulting in an increased assessment of$251,385 ($28,700 for the land and $222,685 for the improvements). This occurred sometime after Mr. Scheren filed his petition which is why the form does not reflect the updated assessment amount. The list of properties submitted as comparable by Mr. Scheren do not contain houses which are comparable to Mr. Scheren's house. He presented a sales map for the Board's review which shows that most of the properties in the area sold for more than their assessed values. The assessment history indicates that Mr. Scheren's property has been in the Single Family Exemption program twice due to remodeling. The house initially had 768 square feet ofliving space and after remodeling it now has over 3,000 square feet ofliving space. That includes a 760 square foot accessory dwelling unit (ADD) built above a detached garage. Additionally, the appellant's property was appraised for financing purposes in 1999 for $265,000. Mr. Scheren responded that when property owners apply for a loan they want a high appraisal value for their property in order to maximize the amount of their financing. The financing institution appraised the value of his property at $265,000, however, this value is not realistic according to the market. Houses simply aren't selling. Appraisers only look at buildings and view, they don't consider the surrounding environment. He believes he "overbuilt" his home based on the area where it is located. Mr. Pownall commented that there are three deeds of trust against the appellant's property for borrowed money/loans. In 1999 Mr. Scheren borrowed $238,500. Through refmancing in 2001 that loan was paid and $219,000 was borrowed. Then in 2003 the appellant borrowed another $50,000 against the property. Mr. Scheren stated that the $50,000 loan is actually a line-of-credit. Mr. Pownall asked if the property is used as collateral for the line-of-credit? Mr. Scheren replied yes. Apparently the Bank thinks the property is worth more than the Assessor's value since they continue to loan Mr. Scheren money against it. The property is also actively landscaped, so it seems to Mr. Pownall that Mr. Scheren realizes that he is spending money which cannot be recouped. Mr. Scheren agreed and explained that his wife doesn't want to move so he figures since they'll be there for the long term he might as well make the property just the way he wants it. . Board of Equalization Minutes - December 2, 2003 Pajte: 8 In closing Mr. Pownall stated that this property is worth every bit of the current assessed value and he suspects it may be worth even more. 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 ofthe property and make a determination at a later date. Meeting adjourned. A~t:'L J/. I UU-v /1'-1, ~ o/d/L Erin K. Lundgren, Cletl~e Boaref JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF EQUALIZATION f William s.t. ar.low. ' Chran ti./J,;j /~ Richard A. B~~le~s,vrce-Chairman Ck~a /Y<~-t1 ;res A. DeLeo, Member