Skip Navigation
This table is used for column layout.
03-13-08 Minutes
March 13, 2008

The Board of Assessment Appeals met on Thursday, March 13, 2008.  Members present were Stephen Palmer, Michele Contino and David Harma.  The meeting was called to order at 6:50 p.m.

The following appeals were heard by David Harma and Michele Contino.

The O’Connells purchased the property in 2004.  They only have 47 feet on the water and their view is partially blocked.  They are a flag lot.  Vision Appraisal reduced values on Cove Road but their reduction was one of the smallest.  They compared their land assessment to 50 & 2 Cove Road.  They also compared to 166-168 Cove Road.  Their assessed land is 91% of the other properties; after the 2002 revaluation they were about 85%.

Mr. Snyder is in a GBR-130 zone.  This zone puts many restrictions on the land.  The floor area ratio means he must remove his chicken coop to put an addition on the house.  The shed has the wrong dimensions and is in bad shape.  He has an open front porch; not an enclosed front porch.  He compared the use of his property to the property across the street in a different zone.

BUSSEY, JAMES & CAROL – Represented by Atty. Theodore Ladwig
31, 33 and 35 Ashworth Avenue – All three properties has had an unrealistic increase in the assessment averaging 60%.  The per acre value on these lots is too high.  These are interior lots; not waterfront.

83 Boulder Avenue – This lot is .29 acres making the per acre cost 2.145 million.  The increase of 37% is too high.

13 Skipper Street – This lot increased 60% which is an unrealistic increase.  The per acre cost of the land is 2.8 million; which again is too high.

The Modugnos were represented by Atty. Ladwig.  The technical point was argued that they are a condominium and do not own the land.  He submitted a definition of the unit.  The common elements are owned by all units and perhaps should be taxed to the Association.  In regards to the value, the per acre cost of the land is too high.  The assessment increased 116%.

ABDOW, RICHARD – 10 Center Drive
This property has no Town facilities and no year round water.  They have a well but the water is brackish.  He compared his views with 23 & 25 Center Drive.  They have a high elevation.  15% of his property is a common drive with 111 Latimer Point Road.  He can’t do anything to the house because the DEP will not let them add to the property; even a deck.

LENNON, THOMAS & DEBORAH – 229 Greenhaven Road
Mr. Lennon feels the best comparable is 6 Lindsey Lane.  Vision Appraisal gave a small adjustment at the hearings.  He submitted an appraisal done for a refinance.  The backyard is not level.

Mr. Robert Ferrara spoke for the company.  He feels the value on the slips is too high.  Five years ago they were $5,000 at 50%.  The cost new to rebuild is $103,000.  Some of the slips are above the water at low tide.  He compared the slips to other marinas in Town.  He compared the depth of the water with other marinas.  He has very old homemade docks of inferior quality.  He showed pictures.

This is raw land.  He has no dock and no landscaping has been done.  He compared his lot to the one next door.

79 AL HARVEY ROAD – Mr. Dolan submitted reports from MLS comparing asking prices and current prices showing a falling market.  He also submitted reports of closed sales.  He also showed the report of a property pulled off the market that never sold.

Steve Palmer heard the following appeals:

GUILLE PETER – 2 Williams Ave
Michael Blair acted as Mr. Guille’s agent regarding the appeal. He is arguing that the property is improperly assessed. He presented his computations using both the sales comparison and the income approach to value. He questions Vision Appraisals Cap rate and the C factor valuation of the property. 41 East Main St was one property he used that he says is most comparable. He used an 11% Cap Rate, which he says the marketplace supports, to figure a combined value of land and improvements at $418,427.73.

QUINN DAVID – 69 Wamphassuc Pt Rd
Mr. Quinn is appealing the land value. He feels the appraisal is excessive given the property’s adjacent proximity to the railroad tracks along the entire tract. He doesn’t think that the property value was adjusted correctly for this factor; close to railroad tracks, cemetery. He presented pictures showing the proximity to the railroad tracks. He compared his property to sales in neighborhood: the 2007 sale of 5 Wamphassuc Rd and the 2006 sale of 145 Wamphassuc Rd. He estimates the assessed value of the property at $695,000.

STANTON JAMES – 8 Pequotsepos Center Rd
Mr. Stanton is appealing the land value. He states the lot was assessed for more than it was worth and up almost 100%. He doesn’t see adjustment to C factor for wetlands, ledge on property. He presented land assessment comparisons of neighboring properties showing sales from 2005-2006. He paid $12,000 for his lot in 2005 and is looking for land assessment to be $32,000.

ALI, GIUMAZIE – 26 Lincoln Ave
She feels her assessment is too high compared to other houses in neighborhood. The dwellings second floor is not finished and more of a depreciation value should be given. She is looking for a reduction in dwelling value.

WALZ DAN – 8 School House Rd
Mr. Walz feels the assessment is incorrect. The prorated assessment of the new construction as of 10/29/2007 was $572,500. Do not understand the increase of value from that time. Also questioned the C Factor of the land value: was the fact that the property is part wetlands taken into consideration. He presented map and list of comparable properties in area; 5 Egret, 12 School House, 5 Heron that have larger lots, better water views. He is looking for total appraised property value of $1,080,000.

Ms. Antinoph is looking to lower the valuation of 1 Front St. She presented pictures of her views and recent comparable sale at 3 Front St and deed showing easements. She says increased traffic due to a new fish market next door and increased truck business from the docks decreases her property value. She is looking to reduce the property value to $300,000.

Robert Tobin of Tobin, Carberry was acting as agent. They are appealing what they consider an inaccurate appraisal value. He presented a 2005 independent appraisal report and comparables. They estimate appraised property value at $2,000,000.

BROWN SUSAN – 136 Stephen Dr
Ms. Brown is looking for a reduction on the assessment value of her mobile home. She says the property is a 1973 mobile home that needs a lot of work; roof leaks, windows leak creating water damage on inside walls, ceiling and sills. She estimates property value at $17,359.

Charles Karnolt, John and Cynthia Pistolese and Ann Moore did not appear for their appointments.

There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Stephen Palmer