Laserfiche WebLink
<br />BOARD OF EQUALIZATION MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 4, 1999 Page 2 <br /> <br />Mr. Pownall replied that whether or not the property needed to be placed on the open market to be considered <br />an "arms length transaction", is a matter of interpretation. The previous owner also approached other neighbors <br />in the area who were not interested in purchasing the property. If the previous owner had wanted to put the <br />property on the open market he would have done so. The lots cannot be developed and are basically useless <br />except as a buffer to a neighbor. An outside buyer would not be interested in this property. In addition, he does <br />not feel that the value of the adjacent property he also owns, has any bearing on the assessed value of the three <br />(3) lots he recently purchased. The combined value of all his property is not the issue. The issue is the value of <br />the three (3) lots which he is appealing. <br /> <br />After reviewing all the information submitted and hearing the testimony of both parties, the Board concurred to <br />conduct an inspection of the property and make a determination at a later date. <br /> <br />Henry, T.L. & B.L. Sukert <br />2152 Sims Way <br />Port Townsend, W A 98368 <br /> <br />BOE: 99-19-LO <br />99-20-LO <br /> <br />PN: 994200041 <br />994 200 044 <br /> <br />Henry Sukert and B.1. Sukert were present. Appraiser Robert Shold represented the Assessor's office. After <br />explaining the hearing process Chairman Marlow swore them in. The property under appeal consists of two <br />residential bare land lots, each approximately 1 acre in size, located along Rhody Drive in Port Hadlock. Henry <br />Sukert stated that they purchased both parcels seven (7) years ago for $80,000. At the time of the purchase the <br />property was zoned commercial. The property has since been down zoned to residential (category R-5) which <br />they believe significantly reduces the value. There is no water available and the property is adjacent to a busy <br />highway (Rhody Drive) which is not appropriate for a residence. The property is worthless with a residential <br />zoning and the appellants are certain that nobody would want to live there. The only reason they are keeping it <br />is to honor the contract they entered into with the seller. B.1. Sukert stated that he has the same feelings. The <br />property is currently assessed at $43,290 for parcel number 994 200 041 and $41,400 for parcel number 994 <br />200 044. In his view, both parcels together are not worth more than $20,000. <br /> <br />Mr. Shold stated that the date of the official down zoning is the determining factor. He believes the down <br />zoning occurred in August of 1998 with the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan by the Board of County <br />Commissioners. Mr. Shold stated that he is not the appraiser who valued the property originally, however, if <br />the property is now zoned as residential it should be valued as such. He recommends the property be revalued <br />to reflect the change in zoning. <br /> <br />Chairman Marlow asked if the appellants had been denied access to the city water line which runs by the <br />property? <br /> <br />B.1. Sukert replied that they were informed that the city was no longer issuing water taps off of that water line <br />to properties located outside of the service area. Henry Sukert added that properties located on the west side of <br />Rhody Drive cannot get water taps. B.1. Sukert stated that there was water available when they purchased the <br />property, however, the commitment letter was only valid for 90 days. The appellants do not have a written <br />denial from the city regarding access to the water line. <br />