HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Board of Civil Authority - 09/11/2021 - Morning sessionBOARD OF CIVIL AUTHORITY AM SESSION 11 SEPTEMBER 2021
The South Burlington Board of Civil Authority held a meeting on Saturday, 11 September
2021, at 9:00 a.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 180 Market Street.
Members Present: C. Shaw, Chair; C. Trombly, D. Kinville, M. Emery, T. Barritt, H. Riehle, Sen. T.
Chittenden, C. Wagman, B. Nowak, M. Cota, C. Callea
Also Present: M. Lyons, Assessor
Prior to addressing the formal agenda, Mr. Shaw asked for a moment of silence in memory of
those who lost their lives in the World Trade Center attacks 20 years ago.
1. Emergency Evacuation Plans:
Ms. Kinville reviewed the procedure for evacuation in case of an emergency.
Mr. Shaw reviewed guidance for the wearing of masks which is encouraged but not mandated.
2. Comments from the public not related to the agenda:
No comments were made.
3. Any Change in the order of the Agenda:
Mr. Kleiner noted that item “d” under appeals is withdrawn as it was never appealed.
4. BCA Oath:
Ms. Kinville administered the Oath to members of the Board.
5. Approve Minutes from 2 September 2021:
Ms. Emery moved to approve the Minutes of 2 September 2021 as written. Ms. Callea
seconded. Motion passed with all present voting in favor.
6. Hear appeals and set inspection date:
a. Knwocha Damilela 61 Flanders Lane
Ms. Kinville advised that this item had been withdrawn.
BOARD OF CIVIL AUTHORITY
19 AUGUST 2021
PAGE 2
b. Carrie Plunkett & Tyler Smith 68 Laurentide Lane
Ms. Kinville noted that the appellants could not be present due to a hockey tournament. They
have just submitted evidence with no one present to represent them.
Ms. Emery noted she knows Ms. Plunkett but has no issue with being impartial.
It was noted that the Lister’s card has incorrect information. It lists 6 bedrooms and 4 baths
when the correct figures are 5 bedrooms and 3 baths. The corrected square footage is 2463.
The home was appraised in October 2019 for $592,000 and is now appraised at $674,000. The
appellants felt this was unrealistic.
Ms. Lyons said that after adjusting the card for the number of rooms and the square footage,
looking at time adjusted sales at comparable properties at 40 Laurentide ($624,627), 90 Ledge
Way ($617,240) and 26 Ledge Way ($613,792), she felt that $635,000 was a fair assessment for
the Plunkett/Smith property.
Ms. Kinville said she will give this new information to the appellants and give them the option
to withdraw. In the meantime, an inspection team of Sen. Chittenden, Ms. Wagner and Ms.
Emery was assigned to view the property on 13 September at 6 p.m.
The appeal was then continued to 16 September at 6 p.m.
c. Patricia Williams G-1 Stonehedge Dr.
Ms. Williams said she wanted to be more in line with other units in Stonehedge. There are now
only 4 higher than her assessment. She said she lives in one of the older units and is the highest
appraisal in Stonehedge North. She has only 1 bathroom on the second floor, and no
basement. Ms. Williams noted that other units were increased by $46,000-51,000 Her unit was
increased by more than $100,000. The other end unit went up $81,000.
Ms. Williams felt that $280,000 would be a fair assessment.
Ms. Lyons noted that Stonehedge is the last of the areas to be redone when the assessment
hearings process in completed. She said the inspection team can make notes about the
number of bathrooms. The card lists 2 plus a half.
BOARD OF CIVIL AUTHORITY
11 SEPTEMBER 2021
PAGE 3
Ms. Lyons then presented time adjusted sales for A5 Stonehedge ($297,534), I-15 Stonehedge
($318,000), and N-4 Stonehedge ($312,620). Based on those sales, she felt $312,900 would be
a fair assessment for the appellant’s property.
An inspection team of Sen. Chittenden, Ms. Wagner, and Ms. Emery was assigned to view the
property on 12 September, 9 a.m.
The appeal was then continued to 16 September, 6 p.m.
d. BTV Real Estate 53 Stonington Circle
This appeal was withdrawn.
e. BTV Real Estate 99 Stonington Circle
Dr. Kleiner said the records for this property are incorrect. They indicate 1228 sq. ft. when the
actual square footage is 600 sq. ft.
The property is appraised at $425,000. Dr. Kleiner said the comparables range from $330,000
to $355,000. No property in that neighborhood sold for anywhere near $425,000. He cited #53
and #99, which are almost identical and are appraised much lower.
Dr. Kleiner said when he spoke to Tyler, he was told that the reason for the appraisal being so
high was square footage and that they would send someone to look at the property. No one
ever came, and he received a letter that the appeal was denied. Dr. Kleiner said he then had an
appraiser from Green Mountain Valuations measure the square footage at 578 sq. ft. Dr.
Kleiner also noted that units #101 and #91 were appealed and the square footage was
corrected as was the assessment.
Ms. Lyons said she was unaware of the incorrect square footage. This needs to be corrected.
She felt that $330,000-$355,000 would be where this property should fall with the corrected
square footage.
Mr. Trombly said an inspection team can be assigned. In the meantime, Ms. Lyons can adjust
the assessment based on square footage. Dr. Kleiner would then have the option to withdraw
if he is satisfied with the new numbers.
BOARD OF CIVIL AUTHORITY
19 AUGUST 2021
PAGE 3
An inspection team of Sen. Chittenden, Ms. Wagner and Ms. Emery was then assigned to view
the property on 13 September at 6:45 p.m.
The appeal was continued to 16 September, 6 p.m.
f. Valerie Spadaccini 91 Twin Oaks Terrace
Ms. Spadaccini said the units were built in 1979-80. There have been no upgrades to her unit
other than new carpeting. She has an estimate for upgrades to her kitchen and bath totaling
$20,000 to $25,000. She asked to reduce her assessment of $186,200 by the upgrade estimate.
She felt that $161,000 would be a correct appraisal.
Ms. Spadaccini noted that 2 units currently for sale are asking $205,000 and $215,000. These
units have been completely redone, have hardwood floors, granite countertops, etc. The
layouts are the same as hers.
Ms. Lyons said the condition of the property is listed as average, and based on time-adjusted
sales from 26 Twin Oaks Terrace ($191,609), 50 Twin Oaks Terrace ($188,330), and 53 Twin
Oaks Terrace ($194,233), felt the current assessment of $186,200 was fair.
Mr. Trombly noted that the card lists 3 porches when Ms. Spadaccini says there are only 2. Ms.
Lyons said the “front door stoop” is considered a “porch.”
An inspection team of Mr. Trombly, Mr. Cota and Ms. Callea was assigned to view the property
on 12 September at Noon.
The appeal was continued to 16 September, 6 p.m.
g. Terrance & Jean Woodard 3001 Brand Farm Drive
Ms. Kinville advised that this appeal was withdrawn.
` h. Marilyn Machia 703 Dorset Street
Ms. Kinville recused herself as she is well acquainted with the appellant.
BOARD OF CIVIL AUTHORITY
11 SEPTEMBER 2021
PAGE 5
Ms. Machia said there seems to be no logic to the new assessed values. Homes assessed at
$200,000 to $259,000 were previously assessed much lower than hers, and hers is now
assessed for $265,700. She noted that when the previous assessor knew where her house is,
he immediately lowered her assessment.
Ms. Machia said her house is less than 1000 sq. ft., and it is the only single family house in the
area not in a ‘neighborhood.’ It is a very high traffic area and people use her driveway to turn
around when they are frustrated by traffic. There are utility poles on either side of her
driveway (she presented pictures of this) which frequently get hit by lightning.
Ms. Machia also noted she was concerned with the process and felt “threatened.”
Ms. Lyons then presented time adjusted sales figures from 326 Spear Street ((397,605), 105
Swift Street ($411,233), and 1965 Dorset Street ($305,850). Based on these figures, she felt the
Machia property was fairly assessed at $265,700.
An inspection team of Mr. Trombly, Mr. Cota and Ms. Callea was assigned to inspect the
property on 11 September, 11:15 p.m.
The appeal was then continued to 16 September, 6 p.m.
h. Richard and Mary Hulette 82 Economou Farm Road
Ms. Hulette said they bought the home in 2006 for $485,000. She noted the current
assessment of $622,200 is a 45.6% increase from the prior assessment of $427,200. Ms.
Hulette said there are no high-end finishes, minimal hardwood floors, inexpensive carpeting,
builder’s grade cabinets and fixtures, and laminate counter-topes in the kitchen and bath.
There are also particle boards with vinyl skins which are now peeling. The only upgrades to the
property were kitchen appliances and counters. There is no finished space in the basement,
and it is not heated. The roof is original and aging. The property is not on the golf course as
homes across the street are. Directly behind the house are city easements for storm drainage
and a proposed detention pond which will be an issue if they sell. They used to be the least
valued, now they are the 4th highest.
Ms. Hulette said they feel $550,000 would be a fair assessment.
BOARD OF CIVIL AUTHORITY
11 SEPTEMBER 2021
PAGE 6
Ms. Lyons then presented time adjusted sales figures for 79 Economou Farm Rd. ($678,468),
205 Economou Farm Road ($595,660), and 89 Nicklaus Circle ($443,200). She felt that based on
those sales, $622,200 was a fair assessment.
Mr. Trombly asked about the lower value furnishings. Ms. Lyons said that is a matter of taste,
and they are still functional.
Ms. Hulette said 79 Economou is an extremely upgraded home with hardwood floors
throughout, a luxury kitchen. They are an “outlier” at the other end. Mr. Hulette added that all
3 of Ms. Lyons’ comps are upgraded properties. He felt the Hulette home could never get what
Ms. Lyons says.
An inspection team of Mr. Trombly, Mr. Cota and Ms. Callea was assigned to inspect the
property on 12 September, 10:30 a.m.
The appeal was continued to 16 September, 6 p.m.
Ms. Callea then moved to continue all appeals heard until 16 September, 6 p.m. Mr. Cota
seconded. Motion passed with all present voting in favor.
i. Other Business:
Ms. Callea noted that VLCT has excellent information on how to prepare for appeal hearings
which they will provide to anyone who asks.
As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at
11:30 a.m.
_____________________________
Clerk