HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Board of Civil Authority - 10/16/2021 - Afternoon sessionBOARD OF CIVIL AUTHORITY PM 16 OCTOBER 2021
The South Burlington Board of Civil Authority held a meeting on Saturday, 16 October 2021, at 1
p.m., in the conference room, City Hall, 180 Market Street.
Members Present: C. Shaw, Chair; D. Kinville, C. Trombly, T. Barritt, B. Nowak, M. St. Germain, C.
Wagner, M. Cota
Also Present: M. Lyons, City Assessor; A. Swift, S. Cummings, P. Smejkal
1. Review evacuation plans in case of an emergency.
Ms. Kinville reviewed emergency plans. Mr. Shaw noted that the wearing of masks is encouraged in
City Hall.
2. Comments and questions from the public not related to the agenda:
No comments or questions were presented.
3. Any change to the order of the agenda:
No changes were made to the agenda.
4. BCA oath administered:
Ms. Kinville administered the oath to Board members.
5. Hear Appeal from:
Mr. Shaw explained the appeals process.
a. Jean Fahrenbach 406 South Beach Road
Ms. Fahrenbach’s daughter, Ms. Swift said that unit 406 should not be valued at the high end as it has
not been upgraded as other units have. She noted that South Beach Road properties had an average
increase of 42% while other lakeside properties saw only a 25% average increase. She questioned
whether an equalization had been done. Ms. Swift also noted that other units had gone through the
process and had been reduced.
Ms. Swift said her mother’s property still has its original kitchen and bath fixtures. Storage space has
not been converted to additional bedrooms. It is also an interior unit. Ms. Swift showed pictures of
upgrades to other units. She then showed sales of comparables in the development and noted that
more than 80 appraisals are more than the sale prices of the units. She also showed graph comparing
other lakeside communities’ appraisals to this condo development.
Ms. Swift felt a fair appraisal would be $542,080 when comparing the sale of 608 and 607 and taking
the average of those 2 sales times 1.28 as the average increase in the city. She noted that an
independent appraisal done in August came in at $558,000.
BOARD OF CIVIL AUTHORITY
16 OCTOBER 2021 (pm)
PAGE 2
Ms. Lyons said that #406 has a good quality rating. It has no basement. She then presented 3
comparables, all on South Beach Road: #201 had a time adjusted sales price of $728,994; #103 had a
time adjusted sales price of $719,550; and #102 had a time adjusted sales price of $705,600.
Based on those figures, Ms. Lyons said she felt that #406 is fairly assessed at $691,700.
Mr. Shaw asked whether Ms. Lyons makes a distinction between end and middle units. Ms. Lyons
said she does not. Mr. Shaw asked if that could affect the value. Ms. Lyons said it could.
Mr. Shaw asked about the difference in Ms. Lyons’ calculation from the independent appraisal. Ms.
Lyons said the independent appraisal was not based on sales but focuses solely on that unit.
Ms. Swift said it is hard to “brush stroke” the development as there are a lot of differences in the
interiors.
Testimony was then closed.
An inspection team of Mr. Nowak, Mr. St. Germain and Ms. Wagner will view the property at 2 p.m.
on 16 October.
The appeal was then continued to 21 October at 6 p.m.
b. Sarah Cummings 407 South Beach Road
Ms. Cummings said the Landings went up 40% while the rest of the city went up only 27%. The
adjacent neighborhood properties on Bartlett Bay Road, Austin Drive and Stanhope Road went up
only an average of 20.5%. She felt 40% was excessively high. She felt her current assessment of
$690,000 should be reduced to $635,000.
Ms. Cummings cited a recent sale of unit #102. It was assessed at $676,000 and sold for $660,000. It
has newer bathrooms than hers.
Ms. Cummings noted that other assessments in the development that had been appealed were
reduced about 6.5%. Using that as a guide, she felt $635,000 to $640,000 would be appropriate for
her unit.
Ms. Lyons said the property has a good quality rating. She then presented three comparables, all on
South Beach Road: #201 sold for a time adjusted price of $728,994; #103 sold for a time adjusted
price of $719,550; and #102 sold for a time adjusted price of $705,600.
Based on those sales, Ms. Lyons felt #407 South Beach Road was fairly assessed at $690,000.
BOARD OF CIVIL AUTHORITY
16 OCTOBER 2021 (PM)
PAGE 3
Testimony was then closed.
An inspection team of Mr. Nowak, Mr. St. Germain and Ms. Wagner was assigned to inspect the
property at 2:15 p.m. on 16 October 2021.
The appeal was continued until 21 October, 6 p.m.
c. Adis & Emina Seferagic 7 Floral Drive
The appellants were not present. Since this was their first “no show,” members agreed to continue
the appeal to 28 October at 6 p.m.
d. Peter Smejkal 12 Oak Creek Drive
Mr. Smejkal said the home was built in 1989 for $77,000 plus $6,000 for the land. He felt there are
no comparables to his home, and he was concerned that the system does not encourage people to
upgrade their homes.
The original assessment was appealed to Tyler and went from $504,000 to $488,900,
Mr. Smejkal submitted an estimate of repairs that are needed to the home totaling $361,813, and
said these repairs would be needed if he were to sell the home. Mr. Smejkal recognized that not all
repairs on the list needed to be done if he continued to live there and some were on the list to bring
the house up to code if he decided to sell it.
Mr. Smejkal felt his home should be assessed at $369,800.
Ms. Lyons said the property has an average rating and has an unfinished basement. She presented
three comparables: 26 Oak Creek Drive which sold for a time adjusted price of $582,993; 55 Moss
Glen Lane which sold for a time adjusted price of $503,377; and 6 Fox Run Lane which sold for a time
adjusted price of $584,310.
Based on those sales, Ms. Lyons felt the appellants’ property is fairly assessed at $488,900.
Mr. Trombly asked if the needed repairs are consistent with an average quality. Ms. Lyons said that
from the pictures they appear to be, but the inspection team can make that judgment.
Testimony was then closed.
An inspection team of Mr. Barritt, Mr. Trombly and Mr. Cota was assigned and will inspect the
property on 17 October at 9:00 a.m.
BOARD OF CIVIL AUTHORITY
16 OCTOBER 2021 (pm)
PAGE 4
The appeal was then continued to 21 October, 6 p.m.
e. James Rock 100 South Street
Mr. Rock was not present. As it was his second “no show,” his letter of appeal was used as his
testimony.
The property is assessed at $428,000. Mr. Rock’s letter lists a number of needed repairs, and he
believes that because of this, the assessment should be $342,000.
Ms. Lyons said that 100 South Street has a fair/average quality rating and has a partially finished
basement. She presented three comparables: 90 South Street which sold for a time adjusted price of
$477,048; 7 White Place which sold for a time adjusted price of $406,138; and 44 Proctor Avenue
which sold for a time adjusted price of $408,865.
Based on those sales, Ms. Lyons felt the appellant’s property should be fairly assessed at $410,000.
Testimony was then closed.
An inspection team of Mr. Barritt, Mr. Trombly and Mr. Cota was assigned to inspect the property at
9:45 a.m. on 17 October.
The appeal was continued until 21 October, 6 p.m.
f. Pizzagalli 55 Green Mountain Drive
The appellant was not present.
Ms. Lyons noted that the appellant had originally done an income based assessment. They then
looked at other properties, especially 35 Green Mountain Drive which is owner occupied. They now
want to lower the original property to equal the others.
Ms. Lyons noted that the tenant at #55 has left, and the appellant needs to make that unit ready for a
new tenant.
Ms. Lyons said that yesterday she told him she could give him an assessment of $1,638,800. He is
looking for $1,600,000. She told him he could appeal again in June.
As the appellant had not contacted the clerk and this was this first appeal hearing, members agreed
to continue the appeal to 28 October at 6 p.m.
BOARD OF CIVIL AUTHORITY
16 OCTOBER 2021 (pm)
PAGE 5
Mr. Barritt moved to continue agenda items “a,” “b,” “d,” and “e” to 21 October, 6 p.m. Mr. Trombly
seconded. The motion passed with all present voting in favor.
Mr. Trombly then moved to continue agenda items “c” and “f” to 28 October, 6 p.m. Mr. Cota
seconded. Motion passed with all present voting in favor.
g. Other Business:
No other business was presented.
As there was no further business to come before the Board, Mr. Cota moved to adjourn. Mr.
Barritt seconded. The meeting was adjourned at 2:28 p.m.
__________________________
Clerk