Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM120604 c . (.)\ ~QU4le ~~v~ c:> I~~~~\ ~ t:O (~ ~I / \~ ~/ ~~)/ 1820 Jefferson Street P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 James A. DeLeo William S. Marlow Richard A. Broden MINUTES December 6, 2004 William S. Marlow Richard A. Broders James A. DeLeo Chairman Vice-Chairman Member Chairman William S. Marlow called the meeting to order at 11 :00 a.m. in the presence of Vice-Chairman Richard A. Broders and Member James A. DeLeo. DETERMINATIONS Glen & Frances Peterson 182 Cedarview Drive Port Townsend, W A 98368 BOE: 04-29-R PN: 965000322 The Board reviewed all the information presented by both parties and conducted a physical inspection of the property. Sales of comparable property show that this property is equitably valued. The fact that the basement is accessed from the garage and is not 100% [mished does not appear to have a significant negative impact on the market value of this property. Based on comparable property sales, the Board is compelled to uphold the current assessed value. Vice-Chairman Broders moved to sustain the valuation of$494,215 ($137,500 for the land and $356,715 for the improvements). Member DeLeo seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. (See also minutes of November 29,2004) Estate of Christopher A. Stewart Stephen Lamphear, Representative Jeffrey N. Rupert, Attorney at Law 12011 - 18th Avenue SW Burien, WA 98146-2529 BOE: 04-23-R PN: 902 233 004 The Board reviewed all the information presented by both parties and conducted a physical inspection of the property. The issue in this case is whether or not the Assessor was correct in withdrawing 1 acre out of the "Forest Land" designation. The facts: 1) Three (3) sheds are situated on the property; 2) The property contains a well; 3) A power generator was located on the property, but has recently been removed; 4) The representative for the appellant is not aware of any septic system or septic permit for the Phone (360)385-9100 Fax (360)385-9382 jeffbocC@Co.jefferson.wa.us Real Property Valuation Determination - December 6, 2004 property; 5) The Assessor's representative did not testify that a septic system existed or that a septic permit was applied for. The Board inspected the site on December 6 and found the property to be essentially as described. RCW84.33.035 is the law which governs definitions applicable to "Designated Forest Land". Definition (4) states: "Forest land" is synonymous with "designated forest land" and means any parcel ofland that is twenty or more acres or multiple parcels of land that are contiguous and total twenty or more acres that is or are devoted primarily to growing and harvesting timber. Designated forest land means the land only and does not include a residential homesite. The term includes land used for incidental uses that are compatible with the growing and harvesting of timber but no more than ten percent ofthe land may be used for such incidental uses. It also includes the land on which appurtenances necessary for the production, preparation, or sale of the timber products exist in conjunction with land producing these products. Defmition (8) states: "Incidental use" means a use of designated forest land that is compatible with its purpose for growing and harvesting timber. An incidental use may include a gravel pit, a shed or land used to store machinery or equipment used in conjunction with the timber enterprise, and any other use that does not interfere with or indicate that the forest land is no longer primarily being used to grow and harvest timber. Definition (12) states: "Primarily" or "primary use" means the existing use ofthe land is so prevalent that when the characteristic use ofthe land is evaluated any other use appears to be conflicting or nonrelated. The Board finds that the "improvements" existing on the land in question do not fall into the category of "appurtenances necessary for the production, preparation, or sale of the timber products". The Board also finds that the incidental use is less than 10% of the parcel size. In this case, without any actual measurements, a rough estimation is that it is about 1/2% or less, based on the Board's physical inspection. RCW 84.33 requires the "incidental use" to be "compatible with the growing and harvesting of timber", however, no definition of "compatible" is provided. Therefore, a common dictionary definition shall be used: "Capable of existing together in harmony." (The American College Dictionary, Random House, Inc., 1963) It is not clear whether any use, however small, that displaces potential tree growing ground, is intended to be considered "non-compatible". Definition (8) requires that "any other use" must "not interfere with" the primary (forest land) use. Definition (4), (8) and (12) read together appear to indicate that some displacement of timber growing area is acceptable, because 10% of the property is allowed to be used for "incidental uses". Those uses which are specifically listed do displace potential timber growing ground. Therefore, the Board concludes that some displacement of forestry use is acceptable and contemplated under the "compatibility" test for incidental uses. , Real Property Valuation Determination - December 6, 2004 This appears consistent with definition (12) where "primary use" is defined. The Board finds that the three (3) small sheds (apparently of a size exempt from building permits), and the well are capable of existing in harmony with the land being devoted to forestry uses, and that because of the size and location (along the road) of the sheds, they do not interfere with or displace any land from forestry or timber use. (Trees can grow and are growing in close proximity to the existing sheds.) The final issue is whether or not the structures together constitute a "residential homesite" as used in definition (4) ofRCW 84.33.035. A residential homesite typically is thought of as a cleared site of sufficient size for a residence, with a septic system or sewer connection, and power and water connections. The three (3) small sheds do not constitute a "residence". There is no cleared "homesite", nor is there any documented evidence of any building or septic permits or applications. Therefore, the Board finds the property not to have a "residential homesite". In conclusion, the Board also finds that this property meets the physical and legal characteristics of being "designated forest land" under RCW 84.33 and should remain classified as such. Additionally, the Board has determined that lacking clear, cogent and convincing evidence to the contrary, the value placed on the sheds by the Assessor is fair and equitable. Vice-Chairman Broders moved to overrule the Assessor's valuation of$48,605 ($43,605 for the land and $5,000 for the improvements) and reduce only the land value from $43,605 to $5,710. The improvement value will remain the same, with a new total value for this parcel of $1 0, 71 O. Member DeLeo seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. (See also minutes of November 29,2004) Meeting adjourned. ATTEST: 'j (. I i' -/. ," . I.' I },-",,-_:;#,,,:/.l ~1A..t<,-- brill Lundgren, Clerk of~e Board JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF EQUALIZATION {,---- William"s,,?t ,lOW,' Chai,11JI, . an, . i'4 ~ it ~.J'-f "\~~ -""------- Richard A. Broders, Vice-Chairman ~/~~//.~~d ~s A. De-Leo, Member