HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Board of Civil Authority - 10/07/2021 - Afternoon sessionBOARD OF CIVIL AUTHORITY PM 7 OCTOBER 2021
The South Burlington Board of Civil Authority held a meeting on Thursday, 7 October 2021, at
6 p.m., in the conference room, City Hall, 180 Market Street.
Members Present: C. Shaw, Chair; D. Kinville, P. Mahoney, C. Callea, K. Nugent, T. Barritt, C.
Santorello, A. Gross, B. Gross, B. Nowak, M. St. Germain
Also Present: M. Lyons, City Assessor; L. Beasimer, S. Hoar, J. Greenwald, M. Kirkpatrick
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. Jennifer Copeland, & J. Bond 198 Rye Circle
Ms. Kinville advised that this appeal has been withdrawn.
b. James & Ilena Smith 30 Butler Drive
The appellants were not present.
The hearing was opened, and the decision was made to hear from the Assessor and to try to
contact the appellants for access to the property. If that is not successful, the inspection team
will visit the property and if not able to access the inside of the property, the appeal will be
considered withdrawn.
Ms. Lyons said the property is rated average/good quality. She then presented 3 comparables
on Butler Drive. #31 sold for a time-adjusted figure of $511,166; #22 sold for a time-adjusted
figure of $505,807; #24 sold for a time-adjusted figure of $535,440. Based on those sales, Ms.
Lyons said the Smith property is fairly assessed.
Mr. Shaw noted that the comparable presented by the Smiths sold for $420,000. Ms. Lyons
said that sale may not have been valid (e.g., an estate sale).
BOARD OF CIVIL AUTHORITY
7 OCTOBER 2021
PAGE 2
Testimony was then closed. An inspection team of Ms. Nugent, Mr. Mahoney and Mr.
Santorello was assigned to inspect the property at a time to be determined.
The appeal was continued to 21 October at 6 p.m.
c. Linda Beasimer 1 Oak Creek Road
Ms. Beasimer said her home is next to the smallest house in the Oak Creek development. It is a
one story bungalow. Her assessment increased by 34.5%. When she appealed to Tyler, she got
a letter saying “that’s what houses are selling for.”
Ms. Beasimer noted that #12, a much larger house than hers is appraised at $22,000 less, and
#7 which has more square footage and more baths is appraised at $30,000 less.
Mr. Gross asked if Ms. Beasimer has made any upgrades to the property. Ms. Beasimer said the
patio was crumbling and she replaced it with a deck.
Ms. Callea asked what Ms. Beasimer felt was a fair assessment. She said the same as #7, which
is $414,000.
Ms. Lyons said there are some inconsistencies in this neighborhood, and it is on her list to look
at. If anything needs to be reappraised, she will do that.
Ms. Lyons presented comparables from #6 with a time adjusted sale of $496,836, #22 Butler
Drive with a time adjusted sale of $505,807, and #31 Butler Drive with a time-adjusted sale of
486,500. Based on these sales, Ms. Lyons felt that Ms. Beasimer’s property was fairly assessed.
Testimony was then closed. An inspection team of Ms. Nugent, Mr. Santorello and Mr.
Mahoney will view the property at 2 p.m. on 12 October.
The appeal was continued to 21 October, 6 p.m.
d. Samuel Hoar & Eve Pratt Hoar 5 Keari Lane
Judge Hoar quoted from State Statute (32 V.S.A. Section 4601) requiring all property taxes to be
uniformly assessed and to correspond to the listed value of comparable properties. He then
referred to a spread sheet of properties in his neighborhood and defied anyone to see where
BOARD OF CIVIL AUTHORITY
7 OCTOBER 2021
PAGE 3
his property had been “uniformly assessed.” He pointed our houses with more acreage, more
baths, etc. and noted how values “were all over.” He added that he could not come up with an
equation that equalizes things.
Judge Hoar said he felt $515,000 was an appropriate value for the Hoar property.
Mr. Gross asked whether there have been any upgrades to the property. Judge Hoar said they
upgraded a kitchen 20 years ago but still have the same siding, same deck, same fixtures. It is
the oldest house in the neighborhood.
Ms. Lyons presented comparables from #17 Keari Lane with a time-adjusted sale at $601,660;
#188 Baycrest with a time-adjusted sale at $644,500; and #12 Harbor Ridge with a time-
adjusted sale at $617,608. Based on these sales, she felt the Hoar property was fairly assessed.
Testimony was then closed. An inspection team of Mr. Barritt, Mr. Gross and Ms. Gross was
assigned and will inspect the property on 10 October at 10 a.m.
The appeal was then continued to 21 October, 6 p.m.
e. Anthony & Bethany Dubuque 18 Whiteface Street
The appellants were not present. Mr. Shaw read the letter they had sent as their appeal.
Ms. Lyons said the property is assessed at $464,500. It is average quality with a partly finished
basement. She then presented comparables from sales on Whiteface Street. #4 sold for a
time-adjusted price of $482,616; #19 sold for a time-adjusted price of $493,875; and #2 sold for
a time-adjusted price of $490,256. She felt that based on those sales, the appellants’ property
was fairly assessed.
Testimony was then closed and the inspection team of Ms. Nugent, Mr. Mahoney and Mr.
Santorello was assigned to inspect the property at a time to be determined. Ms. Kinville will try
to reach the appellants to set up this time.
The appeal was continued until 21 October, 6 p.m.
f. Joseph & Barbara Greenwald 70 East Terrace
Mr. Greenwald said that when the appraisal came out, they appealed and were told the “value
is in line with sales.” They still question why they are the highest assessed property on the
street.
BOARD OF CIVIL AUTHORITY
7 OCTOBER 2021
PAGE 4
Mr. Greenwald said they had checked with Zillow which listed the property as having 2440 sq.
ft. They then had an appraisal done by a local company which determined the square footage
to be 2066 sq. ft.
Mr. Greenwald then presented 2 recent sales of $433,000 for a house with almost the exact
square footage, and $490,000 for a slightly larger house. He said the appraisal of their house at
$537,000 is totally out of line. He felt $450,000 to be a more realistic appraisal. He also noted
that Realtor.com values the house at $388,600 and indicates that the value has gone down.
Ms. Callea asked if there have been any upgrades to the property. Mr. Greenwald said they
made a bathroom accessible for their daughter who is in a wheelchair and also installed an
elevator to her 3rd floor bedroom. They were told these additions do not affect the assessed
value.
Ms. Lyons said the assessment will have to be adjusted based on square footage. She
presented 3 comparables on East Terrace. #69 sold for a time-adjusted price of $503,801; #40
sold for a time-adjusted price of $448,572; and #67 sold for a time-adjusted price of $438,657.
She felt that with the new square footage, the fair assessment of the appellants’ property
would be $450,000.
The testimony was then closed and the inspection team of Mr. Barritt, Ms. Gross and Mr. Gross
was assigned to inspect the property on 10 October at 10:45 a.m.
The appeal was then continued to 21 October, 6 p.m.
g. Mary Kirkpatrick 199 Economou Farm Road
Ms. Kirkpatrick said the entire street has an issue with the assessment. She felt that the
neighbors in the final 2 units are the problem. They are the nicest homes and are assessed at
$589,000 and $573,000. Yet other homes are assessed for more.
Ms. Kirkpatrick said her home is down in the cul de sac and gets noise from the golf course. The
water tower also blocks her view from her kitchen window. She said that neighbors with the
same issues did not have the same added value as her house did. There have been no upgrades
to the house and there is roof leakage and moldy window sills. She also said that a 40%
adjustment for “value” did not make any sense. She said it is inherently unfair to say this street
BOARD OF CIVIL AUTHORITY
7 OCTOBER 2021
PAGE 5
went up 40% when other golf course properties were considered differently even though they
are newer.
Ms. Callea asked what Ms. Kirkpatrick felt to be a fair assessment. Ms. Kirkpatrick said between
$575,000 and $580,000.
Ms. Lyons said this neighborhood is on the list for her to check for inconsistencies. The
Kirkpatrick house is listed as average quality. Ms. Lyons then presented sales of three
comparable properties. #79 Economou Farm Rd. sold for a time-adjusted price of $678,468;
#205 Economou Farm Rd. sold for a time-adjusted price of $595,660. 89 Niklaus Circle sold for
a time-adjusted price of $442,200 (this property has the water tower in the backyard). Based
on those sales, Ms. Lyons felt the Kirkpatrick property was fairly assessed.
Mr. Gross asked if Ms. Lyons feels the Economou Farm Road properties are over or under
assessed. Ms. Lyons said she has no idea.
The testimony was then closed and the inspection team of Mr. Barritt, Mr. Gross and Ms. Gross
was assigned to inspect the property on 10 October, 11:30 a.m.
The appeal was then continued to 21 October, 6 p.m.
Ms. Callea moved to continue the appeals heard at this meeting until 21 October at 6 p.m.
6. Other Business:
Ms. Kinville noted the city may get another half-district due to reapportionment. A meeting has
been scheduled for 28 October and representatives have been invited to attend.
As there was no further business to come before the Board, Mr. St. Germain moved to
adjourn. Ms. Gross seconded. The meeting was adjourned at 8:20 p.m.
__________________________
Clerk