MIINUTES OF MEETING
August 16,
2005
John Swindlehurst, II
Bryan Clark
Janice VandeBogart,
Secretary and Town Administrator
Meeting was called to order
at 7PM.
Appointments with the public
regarding revaluation of properties:
1. James Edwards, H3-02-08: Stated that he was in the business of
building and sees a lot of houses built.
He was not disputing the value on the house, it was straight forward and
fair. However, he is concerned with land
around the house. He looked at his
neighbors assessment and felt there is a major discrepancy. He met with Vision Appraisal and stated they were good
people. He asked about the difference
with neighbor’s values. They told him it
was the road factor. Winslow Road factor
is 5 and Route 13 was 4. Mr. Edwards
wanted to know why a highway like 13 was a lower rate than Winslow Road, a town
road, maintained by the State.
John stated that based on
the sales in Dunbarton no one wanted to build or buy on the main roads, and
properties on the back roads were more valuable. He stated that he had many discussions with
Visions and they proved that values were highest on back roads.
Mr. Edwards disagreed
stating that there was a lot of traffic on Winslow Road.
Mr. Edwards stated that he
also had a problem with the View Tax. He
only has a view of the Dunbarton Country Store.
Also from looking at his assessment he felt that all his land was being
increased due to this “view”. Why would
they apply this to all the acres? John
stated that he felt the view tax was only on the 1.85 acres – where the house
is - not the whole of the acres but stated that the board would check with
Vision to verify.
Mr. Edwards brought out the
fact that others in the area, on that hill, were not taxed for a view. John stated that this revaluation was
completed using a different method from the last revaluation and pointed out
that 95% of the town had been reviewed by ONE person. Appraisals are based on opinion and with one
person doing the majority of the town,
they should all have been treated the same. Also, all assessments are based on sales in
the Town of Dunbarton.
Mr. Edwards asked about Current Use and he was told that when property comes out of current use the penalty would be based on 10% of market value of the land at time of disqualification.
2. Ralph Fellbaum, H2-04-02: Stated that Rick from Vision did a field review of his property. He stated that after the changes were made on his assessment everything went up. His house was classified as a Cape and he told Danielle it should be a ranch. With that, his assessment went up. He stated that he would be putting a set of stairs in making the house a cape. They had more square feet in the attic and a finished basement. Ralph said he had an appointment with Visions at the hearings and Danielle remembered everything that was in the house and when he got his appraisal back with changes, it went up. He stated that he felt it should be a cape, not a ranch. He went on to say that the square footage is correct, in that the math is correct but they broke it down differently.
Ralph said he is going to
finished the upstairs and put permanent stairs in. Tim stated the town will come back in the
spring. The board agreed that there
would be no decision right now, will let him know.
Ralph stated that he
expected from his calculations that the assessment should go down approximately
$104,000. Also he asked about being
charged $1000 for a hearth. He has a
chimney opening, with a polished stone on the floor and a wood stove. The BOA felt that this was standard, but
would check on this also.
3. Brian Naro J2-01-29: Stated he has a question on his land
values. A large portion of his land was
used as a stump dump which makes it impossible for him to use as a garden,
cannot have trees or cannot build on it.
He stated that it would cost a lot of money to bring in fill and stated
that holes have been appearing over the years and thought it would continue to
be a problem. This was in the excess
acres of his property, about ˝ to ľ of an acre.
Mr. Naro stated that Visions
did not get in the house as his schedule did not line up with theirs. He went on to say that he did not have a problem
with the house, only the land. Tim
stated that Vision was not allowed to look at the old records so they did need
to enter each and every home. Tim asked
if Mr. Naro would let Vision in the home now and Mr. Naro stated that he did
not want to comment on that.
Mr. Naro asked if he needed
to get in touch with the person who put in the stump dump to see if they had a
map showing how large the dump actually is.
John Asked where it was on the property and Mr. Naro stated that it was
to the right of his driveway.
Mr. Naro asked when he would
know their decision and he was told that he would have to call the town office
as he has an unlisted number and we would need that number to call him. He said he would do that and left.
Chuck stated that he did
let everyone in and went to the hearings
at the school. He received a minor
adjustment and was not satisfied.
A: First he dealt with the small house,
F2-03-04: Vision had it as a ranch and
after the hearing they had changed it to a Bungalow. That did drop the assessment. He was told that cottages would be a lower
price per sq. feet and he wanted the house to be classified as a cottage. However, Vision told him that cottages would
be on the water. He checked on this and
found homes at Gorham Pond that had much better construction than his
house and they were classified as a
cottage. He stated that his house was
below average, with 2 x 4 construction
and should be assessed accordingly. He
also pointed out that a house on Alexander Road was being classified as a Cottage, this being lot #F2-01-03 (Former
Sweeney property). He felt that this
house was a better place than his. His
house is on a slab but does have frost walls.
He said that he wanted his changed to be classified as a cottage. When he went to the hearings Vision did
change the square foot price from $148.00 to $116.24 but would like to bring it
down to a cottage rate of $57.00.
B: Log cabin:
F2-03-08. At the hearing Vision
brought the square footage down,
however, for some reason it increased all the values. Wanted to know why the square footage
should change the dollar amount. Board
will check with Vision.
C: Land Values:
Chuck stated that the combined value for land was $135,000.
Asked if he did away with the lot line and annexed the two lots,
would he have a lower assessment? He asked how a lot with two homes on it
could be assessed for one house lot. He
gave the Jeanne Williams property on Alexander Road as a comparison. Also, Dennis Molnar, on Alexander Road has
the same situation with two homes on one lot.
These two are not assessed as two house lots, only one. Why is he charged for two house sites and
other are not? BOA will check on this.
D: Chuck stated that in 1990 his assessment per
acre was $11,000 per acre, now is $4400 per acre. He was told that the land values were
calculated based on current sales.
The differences between the last revaluation and this one were
discussed. Chuck had questions on
current use penalties and was told penalties are always based on the market
value at time of disqualification.
Chuck stated that he had
more issues to be discussed and the Board stated that because of time
constraint and the line of people here tonight, he would have to come back at
another time.
5: Carl Metzger, D3-02-04: Stated that he had let Vision do an inside
inspection of his home. After he
reviewed his assessment he found that his neighbors, Zorn, had more square feet
but assessed for less than him. He
spent 40 minutes with Vision at the hearing and they were going to change
a lot of things but only changed one thing.
The first floor square footage is correct but he felt that the on the
second floor the square footage was incorrect.
Also the attic is unfinished and only has loose plywood to walk on to
finish the roof. The entrance to the
attic is only a cat walk. He did not
agree with the basement square footage as well saying it should be 1156 not
1212. Stated the dimensions are wrong
also.
Mr. Metzger also questioned
the bedroom count. They have him down
for four bedrooms and should be three. He stated that there was no closet in
the extra room and it was never a bedroom.
Also they had him down for two ˝ baths and he had told Vision that one
room was only plumbed in, no fixtures.
He showed pictures to the Board.
He went on to say that Vision had not taken the second ˝ bath off his
assessment. Mr. Metzger asked for
clarification on the difference between an average and a modern bathroom. It was discussed and the board felt that
because he had a double sink, he was taxed for a “modern” bathroom. The kitchen was discussed and Mr. Metzger
showed pictures of unfinished work in the kitchen and wanted that assessment
reviewed as well.
The Board asked if Mr. Metzger had any objections to Vision doing another inspection of his property and he stated he had no objections.
#6 David Kremidas, K1-10-04: His only question was that Vision had taxed
him for three bedrooms and he only has two.
He stated that he did not have a closet in this room, it was an exercise
room and went on to say that his septic plan was built for a two bedroom house. He told Vision he did not have a third
bedroom and he would be glad to let anyone in the house for an inspection.
#7: Gloria Atencio, D6-05-04A: This is a condo. Vision did
come to the house and did an inside inspection.
Also she had an appointment with Vision and her biggest concern was the
land. There are four units on this 14
acre lot. She wanted to know if all the
units were being charged the one acre home site or is it divided by four? John
stated that he would have to check with Vision and also check the other units. Also, the date that the units were built was
in question. Some were listed a
different year. This will be check into
also. Ms. Atencio also question why
some units were assessed higher than others and it was speculated that some may
have special items in the condo that the others don’t but this will be checked
also. The year built was discussed and
Ms. Atencio stated that she thought it was 1985 but town records will be
researched to clarify.
#8: Frank Merrill: Mr. Merrill stated that he recently purchased
Kevin McDevitt’s gravel pit on Ray
Road. He wanted to find out from the
Board what he needed to file with the town as far as permits, maps and
bonds. John Swindlehurst stated that he
would have to work with the town engineer to determine what amount the bond for
reclamation should be and Mr. Merrill had no problem with that. He was also informed that he would have to
pick up the cost for engineering fees and again he agreed. He went on to say that he intends to work
the pit for a couple of years and then develop the land, possibly build a house
for himself. He stated that he would
have the Erosion control in place and he
is working on this with his engineer. Mr.
Merrill stated that he will be taking what gavel has been excavated and may do
some more later. He would be keeping
records of what was taken out of the ground.
He noted that he operates Pembrook Sand and Gravel so he is very
familiar with the procedure. He stated
that the drivers were all his men and will take into consideration the children
in the area. Also, will not operate
early in the morning. He stated that he
would be filling out an intent to excavate and would have his office help drop
that off at the town office. The town would
be contacting town engineer, Don Mayo, to have a look at the pit area and will
get back to Mr. Merrill.
#9:
Margaret Watkins, E2-01-02: Ms. Watkins
stated that she had received an assessment on her two bedroom cape at $189,665. She came in to explain that the 2nd
bedroom is only used in the summer and closed off in the winter, as it is hard
to heat and is cold in the winter months.
She stated that she would not put an elderly person, or a child up there
because it is old and not safe. When she
got the change in assessment it went up instead of down. The basement has cement where furnace is but
dirt and then crawl space under part of the house and there is water in the
basement in the spring. The bedroom
upstairs had no closet in the bedroom, but has one outside in the hall. There is a heat duct that comes in to the
room but this is closed off in the winter as it is cold in the hallway.
Ms. Watkins also had
questions on the current use part of her land.
How was this calculated? Tim
Terragni stated that this was state mandated and HAD to be reviewed. The Assessors felt that this should all be
rolled into the revaluation of the town
so that it could all be updated. The
State sets the acreage prices which vary from low to high. The Assessors had to look at each one
individually and determine if it is high or low or somewhere in between. It was explained that because of a recent
court decision towns could not take the high rate for all properties. All current use was adjusted according to the
condition of that piece of land within the state guidelines. A questionnaire had been sent to all current
use owners and from that survey it was determined the rating of their current
use property. Also, Bud Noyes reviewed
all the maps that have been filed on Current Use properties. It was also noted by Tim that the state’s
prices per acre had increased this year.
Bryan Clark asked Ms.
Watkins if she had any objections if Vision or the Board of Assessors came to
conduct another inspection of her home and she stated that she had no
objections.
#10: Jason Perry, F3-03-06: Mr. Perry presented paperwork to the Board which included a printout
of his assessment obtained from the website and an appraisal report he had
obtained when he bought the property in October of 2004. He stated that Vision Appraisal did not have
the correct owner on this property and he did not receive notice of his
assessment. All correspondence had gone
to the previous owner.
The appraisal that Mr. Perry
provided to the board showed that the house had only two bedrooms, not
three. There is space in the loft area
but this is used as an office, no closet.
Size is 10 x 28 and Vision has it
down as 17 x 28. Also, he questioned the
square feet of the living area. The
basement square footage is also not correct.
Tim asked if his house was inspected on the inside and Mr. Perry stated
that it was not because Vision had the wrong owner and he did not get
notice. Also, he did try to make
arrangements to have them get in but it did not work out because of his
schedule. He went on to say that the house
was built in 1962, not in 1977. He noted
that an addition (dinning room area) was added in 2001.
Mr. Perry was asked if he
would allow anyone to do an inside inspection.
He said he would NOT allow anyone on the property. When he was asked why, he said that he felt
it was not necessary because he had an appraisal and also that he was advised
not to by someone in the appraisal field and legal council.
John stated that the town
needed to get in so that everyone could be assessed fairly. Agreed that the appraisal Mr. Perry
presented was ok for the sale of the
property but not for tax assessed purposes.
Bryan Clark stated that Vision was professional and other people have
let them in, so why wouldn’t Mr. Perry let them in. Mr. Perry felt that Vision does not have a
good record and did not feel that he would let them in. John Swindlehurst disagreed. He stated that when the Board put this job
out to bid that Vision Appraisals was highly recommended by other towns and
from his experience with them, Vision was head and shoulders above others in
the field.
Tim stated that we need to
get in because the town could not go by anyone’s word. Mr. Perry referred to the appraisal he had
provided and felt that this was accurate.
He said he was unhappy because no one tried to contact him and the
change in ownership was not taken care of and consequently he was not aware of
his assessment until he went to the website.
Made several attempt to get them to come. But did not get results.
Mr. Perry wanted to know if
he would hear from the board before the tax bills go out and he was told that
BOA will make all efforts to make a decision before the tax bills are sent
out. However, not going to promise
anything at this time.
#11: Janice VandeBogart, C6-03-02: Had questions on the tax assessment of the
sprinkler system in the house. The board
referred this question to Visions as they were not familiar with the way these
systems were assessed.
Appointments were done at
9:30 pm
Minutes of the July 19, July
22nd and August 12, 2005 meetings were reviewed and signed.
An extension request for the
MS-1 was discussed. It was decided to
sign the Extension Request form because of the changes that need to be made on
the values. It was not decided on the length
of the extension, it will depend how quickly the final numbers can be
calculated.
The board discussed all the
questions that were brought to their attention tonight. After discussion, the following decisions
were made:
Adjourned: 10:35PM
_____________________________________
Timothy
Terragni, Chairman
_____________________________________
John R.
Swindlehurst
_____________________________________
Bryan
Clark
Dunbarton
Board of Assessors
Recorded by: Janice
Vandebogart
Secretary and Town Administrator