Dunbarton Board of Assessors

Minutes of Meeting

September 16, 2003

7:10 PM

Present: Timothy Terragni, Chairman, Bryan Clark, John R. Swindlehurst

Compton French, Assessor

Linda L. Peters, Recording Secretary

Chairman Tim Terragni called the meeting to order.

Selectman Steven Kennedy was the first appointment of the evening. Mr. Kennedy attended the meeting to gain a better understanding of the process that place for current use. All he understood was that the Town Administrator receives notification from the Registrar of Deeds when a sale takes place, usually between 30-45 days after the sale then the paperwork is forwarded to the Board. Tim Terragni informed Mr. Kennedy that the Board had met with Jim Gibney about 1½ years ago and the procedures were explained then as far as how to assess land that was taken out of current use. The rule of is thumb 10% of the sale price if it’s a regular transaction (eg: through a realtor). Prior to that meeting, the Board was assessing the penalty prior to receiving the sale information. Mr. Kennedy asked when the assessment is made in a case where the Planning Board OK’s a subdivision and the bulldozer comes in and begins to work the land. Mr. Terragni answered that it takes place once the bulldozer blade goes down. Usually it’s a pretty quick change to a building site at that point. He mentioned a case in the past where a developer took four lots out but never did anything with them.

Mr. Kennedy mentioned a current problem with one of the Stillwater properties. The house is built, the road is going in, but the Selectmen cannot give the homeowner an occupancy permit until the road is accepted. He felt it is not fair to the person who completes the house faster than the road because the Town has already accepted the penalty. Mr. Swindlehurst informed Mr. Kennedy that a Certificate of Occupancy indicates that the house is built and has passed all inspections. Mr. French stated that there is a discount on the land until the road is accepted. Mr. Kennedy stated that the building permit stipulates that the occupancy permit cannot be issued until the road is accepted by the Town. Mr. Kennedy felt that by accepting the penalty, the Town then has the responsibility to make sure the road is built to a certain specification as it comes from the Planning Board. Mr. Swindlehurst asked if a c/u penalty was assessed for the roads. Mr. Terragni responded that for years the roads were never taken out (regulations have since changed). He gave an example where a road could wind through a 100 lot subdivision. The road changes the contour of the land which in turn requires that the acreage used for the road be taken out of current use.

Mr. Kennedy sited the Marcou subdivision. The road is not finished and the lots may never be sold or built on. The Town is holding onto the assessment. By the time the property is sold, how much will it cost? To his way of thinking, a contractor can put a finish coat on the road. Mr. Swindlehurst said that normally in a subdivision, the road doesn’t sit that long. Mr. Terragni stated that the roadbed is never assessed at a house lot price. Mr. Swindlehurst stated that according to statute, the tax shall be at the rate of 10% of the full and true value determined without regard to the current use value of the land.

According to Mr. Swindlehurst, when he served on the Board of Selectmen they used to look at the transaction and take 10% of the sale price. If was a case of an arm’s length transaction the Board worked with the true value of the land.

Mr. Terragni stated that it’s [current use] not always a case of a subdivision. If someone has their property in current use where an acre of it has been a homesite and wants to add a barn to that area, they’re not creating another homesite or lot – they just need more land. That is treated differently than a homesite value. He also mentioned that the market value is currently going up 2% a month. Mr. Kennedy asked what when the Board deliberates a change in c/u how long it takes. Mr. Terragni responded that if we’re not waiting for something to come from Concord and they have all the information, they usually have it that night or by the next meeting. It doesn’t happen that often. We could have a 20 lot subdivision with each lot taken out of current use and be down to two lots that are less than 10 acres. The last two lots have to come out of current use even though the bulldozer hasn’t touched the lots and they haven’t been sold. No sale has taken place yet a decision must be made.

Mr. Kennedy stated that he’s hoping to see a smoother transition going from one group to another so that the tax dollars are collected as soon as they can. He understands that there is not always a lot of information necessarily coming to the Board. Mr. Terragni informed him that the State now provides a sales survey approximately so they know what lots are being sold. He also reminded Mr. Kennedy that the current use penalty is based on market value but the homesite is assessed at 1997 values which are lower. This will be the case until the revaluation takes place. Mr. Kennedy would like to ensure that the revaluation will not collide with the Master Plan.

Ann Hanlon addressed the Board regarding the taxes she was paying on her lot. She feels she has a small piece of land and is paying the same that as people who have much more. She has less than an acre and half of her acreage is unusable wetland. She also wanted to know why the abatement used to go to the Selectmen but now goes to the Planning Board. Mrs. Hanlon stated she called the Town Administrator to make the appointment. She’s been in the office several times to find out things but the Town Administrator was not in and the girls there could not give her information she needed. After further discussion, the Board informed her that it is the Board of Assessors, not the Planning Board that handles abatements. She wanted to know why people with more land and frontage are paying less. She said that when she built the house in mid-winter, she never realized that there was a business across the street. Although the property the business is on is nicely kept, she’s afraid that if she were to try to sell her house it may not sell because of it. Mr. French explained that her property assessment was based on 1997 values. It is now assessed at $ 47,450 which includes $ 5,500 for water and sewerage and $ 1,500 for ___________. She still feels she pays a lot for such a small piece of land. Mr. French stated that her assessment was not out of line. They had allowed 10% for topography but also determine values by going into a house. She commented about her tax increase every year. The Board told her that this is a result of articles that are passed at Town Meeting and that the Board is not responsible for the increase. Discussion continued regarding other Town matters that did not affect her assessment.

Dan Terrell addressed the Board regarding the current use penalties that had been assessed to his property. The Board allowed Mr. Kennedy to give a history he had compiled regarding the lot(see attached). The Board reviewed the property map. Mr. Terrell stated that Mr. French had quoted him between $9,500 and $10,500 for a penalty and it was now $6,000 higher than quoted. Mr. French stated that he had quoted based on the way they had been doing it at the time. Mr. Swindlehurst asked when the property was disqualified. Because the property had not been subdivided, it was determined that it became disqualified when the building began. According to Mr. Terrell, the building began in March 2003. Mr. Swindlehurst stated that current use law states that it’s full value at the time that it’s disqualified. The Stillwater lot was used as a base but those are on an unapproved road and Mr. Terrell is on a Town road. The Stillwater homes cannot get a certificate of occupancy. Mr. Terrell has some advantages the others do not because the Town cannot yet maintain that road. Mr. Terragni noted that the date of change on the form is 8/21/02 and questioned the origin of the date. Mr. French was unaware of the origin of the date. Mr. French asked Mr. Terrell when the figures had been discussed. Mr. Terrell responded that it had been February 2003. Mr. French stated that that would have put it in the 2002 tax year.

Mr. Swindlehurst and Mr. Terragni explained that they took the 2.2 acre lot off, then figured $8,300 each on the other two lots. That was the same night they reviewed the Stillwater properties. This was a case where there were no sales figures to go by at the time because no sale took place so the Board had to use a corresponding sale to come up with a figure. Mr. Terrell felt it was an unfair amount. Mr. Swindlehurst felt it was fair based on when the ground was altered. Mr. French noted that the estimate was given based on what they were working with at the time. Mr. Terragni stated that the Board would discuss it and make a decision that evening.

Edward and Marcia Wagner (H3-4-8) addressed the Board regarding their current use assessment. They had received the bill in the mail. They spoke with the Builder [Rick Martin, Right Way Builders] and were told he thought it would be about $4,500. The asked how the Board made the calculations and what was involved in making the calculations as this was not explained on the bill.

Mr. Terragni asked what they had paid for the property. The Wagners purchased the land/building package $325,000. The original quote on the 22 acre lot was $ 89,900.

Mr. Swindlehurst stated that the decision was based on the map that was reviewed at the August meeting. They took the total area and allowed 20 acres in current use.

Mr. Wagner asked if the Board had measured the property. Mr. Swindlehurst responded that the Board is not required to do that. The homeowner should have it measured and staked so that it is identifiable to anyone. The measurement would go beyond the bounds of a driveway, house, and garage, etc. and that area is called “curtilage”. Mr. Wagner asked if everything the builder cleared on the property took that area out of current use. He stated that when the lot was originally cleared, the builder wanted to put the house more on the right and cleared it for that plan. The Wagners wanted it more in the middle and eventually did convince the builder to do so. They asked if because more of the land had been cleared does that bring it out of current use or is it out of current use just where the house is. He wants to be educated as to what to do and feels it [the penalty] was excessive. He wanted to know how they should begin their appeal.

Mr. Swindlehurst stated that as far as the piece of land went, he felt technically that would disqualify the whole lot because there was no structure. At that that time there should have been an assessment for total current use on it. Mr. Wagner asked if “total lot” was the lot that the house was built on or the entire piece of property. Mr. Swindlehurst responded that when they started skimming the land that is breaking current use to the best of his understanding. If that was just a forest lot and it was to be timbered and a landing made for loading logs, a place would be cleared so at that time it wouldn’t

disqualify it because it was used for a forest operation with a clearing for a logging operation. Mr. Wagner explained that it was his understanding that it was logged by the former owner, the builder purchased it, then sold it to the Wagners. Mr. Swindlehurst stated that he used logging as an example of something that wouldn’t disqualify it. Mr. Terragni felt that even a rough road to get the logs would not disqualify it in a timber operation. A road to service a house, however, has to be taken out of current use. The operation has switched from logging to homesite.

Mr. Wagner asked about his driveway. Bryan Clark explained that there was not enough footage on both sides to leave two feet into current use so they took the area from the beginning of the road to the driveway. Mr. Wagner asked if the road went through the middle of the property rather than the strip what the requirement would be.

Mr. Swindlehurst responded there must be some protected area on each side. Mr. Terragni suggested 15-20 feet. They usually don’t see a driveway that small when you include the brush, etc. The Wagners had been told that it was made 40 feet instead of 50 so that it couldn’t be turned into a right of way. Mr. Swindlehurst explained that the slopes along the shoulders would be part of the road and could not be in current use. He felt that for the ease of operating, it would be better for the Wagners to figure the 20 acres of the back portion.

Mr. Wagner wasn’t sure that that much ease is worth $5,000. He didn’t know how the builder got his figure and also didn’t know how the Board got theirs. They just bought the property in June and wanted to know why they got the bill because they didn’t take it out of current use. The ground had been broken in 2002. Mr. Swindlehurst stated that the builder should have been assessed for current use. The Town doesn’t get the deeds from the state for a month or two. That’s generally when we find out that something’s transpired. Mr. Wagner felt that when the Board should have known about it because of the building/occupancy permits. Mr. Swindlehurst explained that the Board does not get theses permits. Mr. Wagner stated that he had called the Assessors office in March so he could get the value to plan for closing costs. Mr. Compton remembered giving Mr. Wagner the assessed value then but explained that the Board wouldn’t know because he is based in an office in Concord. Mr. Terragni explained that the Board is made up of volunteers. He also explained that they go by the information given to them by the people they see. The buyer is responsible for it the; seller is not. Technically that may not be right, and the Board is finding that the information from the developers or builders is not always being passed onto the homeowners buying these properties. Mr. Wagner felt it is the Boards responsibility to do the calculations correctly. If they were aware that the ground was broken last October when the building permit was issued. He felt that the assessment, the line drawn on the property, the date, and the valuation are all arbitrary and picked at the Board’s discretion.

Mr. French explained that the current use penalty tax is based at today’s sale prices. Mr. Wagner asked what the day of assessment for a property in current use. Mr. French stated that one applies to put property in current use by April. Mr. Swindlehurst cited the statute that states the tax shall be at the rate of 10% of the full and true value determined without regard to the current use value of the land which is subject to a non-qualifying use. Mr. Wagner felt the Board waited nine months. Mr. Swindlehurst explained that the Board reviews the list of what has been sold and that is when they act on it. They do not see the building permits. The State supplies the figures. Mr. Wagner asked when the assessment valuation was done. Mr. French told him that they are two different things. For tax purposes, disregarding current use, the tax year is April 1 to March 31. The current use penalty is applied either when the Board finds out about it or at the time of the change. Mr. Swindlehurst stated that these are basically raw land sales which have to be sorted out. He showed the Wagners several examples ranging from $83,000 to $100,000. Mr. Wagner felt that if he was taking out one acre, it should be a different price than if he was taking out 10 acres. Board members explained that it wouldn’t be that much of a difference. Property taken out of current use is not subject to subdivision regulations where a modified subdivision is a five acre lot plus so many feet of frontage. In this case with a large tract of land and you’re making your own house lot, the Board is saying that the cartilage is two acres not five. Mr. Wagner asked if it was based on todays rates because they just got the notice. He asked how they arrived at the $90,000 figure. Mr. French stated that it was based on an average lot in the town. Mr. Wagner asked if the Board was aware of the building permit why they didn’t the land was taken out of current use until June.

Mr. Wagner asked that the Board re-check their facts on that to make sure the assessment of the property was accurate based on dates. Mr. Clark stated that getting the building permit doesn’t mean it was disqualified as the building may not have started for a month or more. The Wagner’s stated that the building had begun in October 2002 and felt the penalty should have been assessed at that time. Mr. Swindlehurst noted that the Board was not in possession of the building permit so could not verify the dates. He told Mr. Wagner that there should have been a plot plan at their house. Mr. Wagner was directed to see the Building department for copies of whatever papers they needed.

Mr. Kennedy asked when the Buy/Sell Agreement was signed. The Wagners felt it was approximately the end of August or beginning of September 2002. They closed June 12. Additional discussion ensued. Mr. Swindlehurst sited RSA 79-a:7 II “The land use change tax shall be due and payable by the owner at the time of the change in use.” After further discussion/conversation, Mr. Wagner informed the Board that he will be begin by requesting an abatement.

The Board discussed the assessment for Dan Terrell. Tim Terrgni made the motion to stand by the decision of $8,300 for a current use penalty. John Swindlehurst seconded the motion. Vote was unanimous.

The Board reviewed and signed the minutes from the August 19 meeting.

The Board assessed a current use penalty of $ 9,100 for E3-06-02 Stillwater.

Bid Specification: Linda Peters will talk to the Town Administrator to see if the sample bid specs are available on disc as this will facilitate editing the form to conform to the Town specification requirements for the Town Revaluation.

Meeting adjourned 10:35 PM

Timothy Terragni Bryan Clark John R. Swindlehurst

Chairman

Correction to July 15, 2003 minutes: The name in the last paragraph should be Marcia Wagner – not Maria Wagner.