►
From YouTube: Board of Equalization Hearing June 2, 2021
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
B
B
I
just
asked
that
you
keep
it
secret
because
we're
actually
having
the
wedding
on
september
4th.
So
that's
just
between
us,
even
though
it's
being
recorded,
although
I
don't
use
it
in
the
air
force,
I'm
an
active
cpa
licensed
in
maryland.
My
wife
kelly
is
an
attorney
who
does
hoa
litigation.
So
I'd
appreciate
it
if
we
are
successful
with
the
appeal
that
you
give
the
military
guy
the
credit.
B
B
We
purchased
the
condo
back
in
november
for
945
000,
the
county
appraiser
values
this
place
at
976
700,
one
month
after
our
per
purchase.
I
respectfully
disagree
and
can
tell
you
that
we
would
not
have
purchased
the
the
place
for
that
amount
and
we
don't
believe
anyone
would
have
we
unders.
We
also
understand
the
market
as
well.
We
were
outbid
in
about
four
places
and
I
was
frankly
at
a
disadvantage
having
to
rely
on
a
va
loan.
B
I'd
like
to
quickly
talk
about
five
reasons,
why
we
feel
that
the
county
assessors
is
overstating
the
value
of
the
place
so
realtor.com
says
tec.
The
technical
definition
of
market
value
is
the
most
probable
price
that
a
given
property
will
bring
in
an
open
trans,
open
market
transaction
or
in
plain
english,
is
the
price
of
will.
A
buyer
is
willing
to
pay
for
a
home,
and
a
seller
is
willing
to
accept.
B
B
B
The
va
appraiser
thomas
murray
iii
and
sra
determined
the
value
was
951
500,
pretty
close
to
what
we
are
requesting,
what
we
paid.
That
was
the
basis
for
the
950
k,
but
we
can
agree
on
951
500..
Three.
We
did
our
research.
Our
real
estate
agent
ran
the
comps.
This
led
to
our
fair
offer,
which
was
accepted
at
9
45
k
we
actively
looked
at
town
homes
at
the
complexes
one
and
two
blocks
away,
which
were
not
included
in
the
assessor's
value.
B
B
First,
I
must
say
that
covet
had
a
role
in
the
values
of
townhomes
from
january
through
november
2020..
Contrary
to
popular
belief,
these
townhomes
were
not
flying
off
the
market
like
hotcakes.
Ours
was
on
the
market
for
over
80
days
before
we
even
started.
Looking
at
it
and
remember,
I
used
my
va
loan.
B
B
Fifth,
the
assessor
talks
about
equity,
but
we
purchased
the
home
in
november
2020
and
we
were
told
30
days
later
that
the
house
was
worth
over
30k
what
we
paid
that
simply
doesn't
pass
the
common
sense
test,
especially
when
it's
that
on
the
market
for
more
than
three
months.
I
realized
that
in
the
grand
scheme
of
things
we
were
talking
about
a
few
hundred
dollars
in
taxes,
but
I
felt
it
was
a
matter
of
principle
and
fairness.
B
Additionally,
I
submitted
the
appeal
months
ago,
but
first
received
written
acknowledgement
on
may
24th
2021
about
a
week
ago,
and
I
would
have
gladly
provided
more
info
if
I
had
seen
the
appraiser's
written
report
and
this
would
have
saved
the
board
some
time.
I
can
forward
the
va
appraisal
right
now,
if
the
board
would
find
it
helpful.
B
C
My
apologies,
my
first
board
hearing
this
year.
The
property
was
not
inspected
due
to
covered,
nor
a
request
per
the
appellant
during
the
review
session
when
originally
spoken
to
the
appellant
was
a
form
that
their
sales
price
was
post
the
sales
analysis
period
and
would
be
taken
to
account
for
next
year's
sales
analysis
period.
C
C
The
property,
like
he
stated,
is
a
two
and
three-quarter
story:
townhome,
it's
1900
square
feet,
340
finished
square
feet
in
the
basement.
The
appellant's
neighborhood
increased
on
an
average
2.6
percent
this
year.
Every
parcel
in
that
neighborhood
had
increased
at
2.6.
The
appellant's
parcel
as
well.
The
appellant
mentioned
that
there
are
a
few
properties
that
could
not
sell
and
the
propellant
only
provided
one
address
to
the
appraiser
for
review.
This
property
also
did
not
sell
during
the
sales
analysis
period,
nor
did
it
sell
until
later
this
year,
this
property
is
5717.
C
North
11th
street,
the
property,
is
in
a
different
townhome
neighborhood
than
the
appellants
neighborhood.
The
original
listing
started
after
the
2020
analysis.
2021
analysis
period
had
ended.
The
property
failed
to
sell
at
999,
900
and
979
in
a
listing
from
september
to
december
of
2020,
which
was
noted
by
the
appellant.
C
It
was
then
relisted
in
march
2021
for
989,
900
and
recently
sold
on
may
26
for
965..
It
was
assessed
on
january
first
of
this
year
for
nine
twenty
six.
Two
hundred
the
sale
has
an
assessment,
the
sales
price
ratio
of
nine.
Fifty
ninety
five
point:
nine
percent
supporting
its
current
assessment,
because
this
net
this
home
is
in
a
different
neighborhood.
It
has
a
different
lm
than
the
the
pellens
neighborhood,
and
that
is
the
location
multiplier,
which
is
derived
historically
from
sales
that
occur
on
the
open
market.
C
It
looks
to
have
sold
in
less
than
a
day
on
109
220..
The
only
difference
between
these
two
units,
as
the
appellant
noted,
is
there's
one
less
bedroom
and
it
only
has
one
dual
vanity
bath
compared
to
the
sales
comps
jewel,
two
dual
vanity
baths.
On
the
second
level,
the
differences
reflected
the
delta
between
their
assessments
in
2021,
1031
was
assessed
at
986
300
and
the
appellants
townhome
is
assessed
at
976
700..
C
C
the
highest
sales
price
achieved
in
the
2021
analysis
period
in
this
neighborhood
was
by
one
of
the
largest
models.
2
000
square
feet,
100
square
feet
larger
than
the
appellants,
and
this
was
an
end
unit.
This
sold
for
a
million
25
after
being
listed
at
a
million
40
for
73
days.
The
next
highest
price,
achieved
by
the
unit
in
the
next
largest
model
type,
was
1997
square
feet
and
this
one
sold
for
a
million
20
000
after
being
listed
at
a
million
10.
C
C
C
There
were
no
sales
during
the
2018
cycle
and
the
2017-16
cycle
were
almost
all
if
not
original
purchases
of
the
town
homes
once
they
were
completed,
the
compellent
sales
price
is
the
lowest
the
neighborhood
has
seen
in
over
five
years.
If
other
sales
in
the
2022
analysis
cycle
follow
the
path
of
the
appellate
sale,
there
will
be
a
defined
trend
for
the
appraiser
to
follow.
If
not
and
the
new
sales
trend
the
way
they
did
inside
the
last
few
analysis
cycles,
this
sale
could
become
an
outlier.
C
Furthermore,
in
mass
appraisal
system
it
would
be
un
inequitable
in
a
highly
homogeneous
neighborhood,
the
difference
of
only
a
hundred
square
feet
to
make
an
adjustment
just
for
one
of
the
lowest
valued
parcels
based
on
a
sales
price
from
outside
the
analysis
period,
while
all
the
other
homes
inside
have
their
valuations
based
on
the
sales
that
occur
inside
the
analysis
period.
Doing
so
would
put
the
appellant's
valuation
in
out
of
line
with
all
the
other
similar
1900
square
foot
units
in
the
neighborhood,
the
department
request.
The
board
confirms
the
2021
assessment
at
976
700..
A
Okay,
thank
you.
Questions
from
board
members.
D
C
Yes,
sir,
that's
based
on
the
fact
that
it
has
a
extra
dual
vanity
bathroom
on
the
upper
level,
where
the
appellant
only
has
one
dual
vanity
bathroom,
but
it's
well
in
our
sheet.
It
says.
A
F
C
Yes,
as
stated
this
home
is
the
lowest
sales
price.
This
neighborhood
has
seen
in
over
five
years
it
it
sat
on
the
market
for
quite
some
time
after
being
listed
at
the
highest
listing
price.
The
neighborhood
seen
the
entire
year,
except
it
was
the
smallest
model
type
after
the
largest
model
type
had
sold
for
weight
less
the
there.
There
was
nothing
submitted
to
review
inside
the
neighborhood
per
comps,
and
we
appreciate
the
board
listening
and
we
again
request
that
it
be
confirmed
at
the
976
700.
B
Yes,
ma'am
again,
thank
you
board
for
listening
to
our
case,
just
to
just
to
hit
a
couple
of
the
points
that
the
appraiser
said.
First,
the
unit
like
like
you
asked
mr
maskin.
The
995
unit
is
the
most
similar,
but
that
was
in
january
of
2020,
and
this
was
listed
in
october
november
for
that
amount
and
and
got
no
bites
for
over
90
days.
So
really
you're
talking
about
one
comp
and
the
other.
B
Two
properties
are
four
b:
it's
it's
a
100
square
foot
difference,
but
he's
he
did
not
he's
neglecting
its
four
bedroom
versus
three
bedroom,
which
is
huge.
Finally,
literally
that
other
townhome
development
we
put
in
a
bid
in
a
place
the
place
that
he
mentions,
and
it
is
a
stone's
throw
from
here.
It
is
very
much
a
similar-like
property
and
I
don't
understand
why
he
didn't
include
the
5706
11th
road
north,
which
closed
on
january,
if
we're
using
his
same
period
january
2020
for
9
49.
B
So
again
I
would
have
addressed
this.
Had
I
gotten
a
notice
that
I
could
respond
to
more
than
a
week
ago,
but
I
just
didn't
have
that
opportunity
so
when
I
did
speak
to
him
he's
a
very
nice
gentleman
and
I
do
appreciate
his
phone
call.
This
has
been
the
nicest
experience,
so
I
I
do
acknowledge
that
I
just
have
a
disagreement.
I
think
the
fair
market
value
price
is
what
a
arm's
length
transaction
should
be,
especially
in
light
of
nine
months
of
covid.
F
And
I
would
just
like
to
make
one
one
last
question:
you
know
there's
been
several
comments
that
our
property
selling
at
a
lower
price
is
an
outlier.
It
might
be
an
outlier
based
upon
the
comps
that
the
appraiser
used
in
our
in
our
community,
the
larger
units
that
are
four
bedrooms.
It
is
not
an
outlier
in
our
neighborhood.
The
complex
across
the
street
is
newer
than
ours,
and
we've
been
watching
those
things
come
on
the
market,
the
ones
that
are
comparable
to
our
property.
The
three
bedrooms
similar
square
footage,
the
two
properties
on
11th
street.
F
We
can
it's
a
stone's
throw
and
those
are
all
selling
in
the
950
960
range
so
well,
it
might
be
an
outlier
in
our
hoa
community
because
it's
sold
at
a
lower
price
than
the
four
bedrooms
and
end
units.
It's
not
an
outlier
in
our
neighborhood.
It's
actually
comparable
to
the
comps
that
our
va
appraiser
cited
in
his
appraisal.
F
G
Thank
you,
madam
chairman.
I
believe
that
the
the
owners
have
carried
the
burden
of
proof
in
this
case,
and
I
think
the
best
evidence
of
value
is
what
they
paid
and
they've
distinguished
the
comps
that
county
has
been
using,
so
I
would
be
inclined
to
go
ahead
and
grant
the
relief
that
the
owner
is
seeking.
E
Yeah,
I
said
I
sit
with
barnes
I'd
I'd
kind
of
feel,
more
comfortable,
just
freezing
the
2020
assessment
at
952.5,
just
because
that
was
already
done
and-
and
I
think
the
appellant
said
they
agreed
to
that
number
anyway,
if,
if
it
weren't
for
the
11th
road
comps,
I
I'd
be
a
little
bit
nervous
about
doing
it.
E
Just
because
I
already
kind
of
thought
about
sales
in
the
late
2020
post
analysis
period
on
another
case
and
got
shot
down
by
the
rest
of
the
board
from
that
logical
reasoning,
standpoint,
but
I
think
the
fact
that
they
pointed
out
sales
that,
in
the
high
940s,
very
similar
newer
units
on
11th
street
that
are
very
close
by,
I
think
they
have
some
comparable
data.
E
I
wish
I
had
the
appraisal,
but
I
understand
there
wasn't
time
to
get
copies
and
that's
not
always
the
best
data,
but
at
least
it
gives
you
a
list
of
the
properties
that
they're
looking
at,
but
I
think
those
11th
road
north
are
pretty
indicative
of
what's
selling
in
that
neighborhood
right
now
in
the
950
range.
D
I
I
respectfully
disagree.
We
go
out
of
neighborhoods
when
we
have
no
choice
with
no
choice
here,
because
there's
some
great
comps
because
of
course
it's
an
homogeneous
neighborhood.
It's
a
development
that
analysis,
I'm
very
wary.
Take
it
further,
I'm
very
aware
of
taking
one
data
point:
the
sale
of
the
appellant
residence,
which
clearly
was
outside
the
analysis
period.
D
Having
said
that,
this
current
assessment
period
2000
through
2022,
they
show
a
completely
different
story
and
they're
at
the
leading
edge
of
what
is
happening
in
arlington
and
they're,
not
an
outlier
they're
right
in
the
middle
of
things
and
if
their,
I
think,
goes
up
next
year
and
of
course
none
of
us
have
any
idea
what's
going
to
happen
for
2022,
they
will
justifiably
be
back
here
generally.
That
doesn't
happen
internally.
Of
course,
the
department's
cried
on
the
ball,
but
I
respect
significantly
the
comparables
that
we
that
we've
been
presented.
D
I
don't
because
we
don't
have
to
look
at
stones,
throw
town
houses
away
because
we've
got
neighborhood
here
now.
Thank.
H
H
Jose,
did
you
happen
to
look
at
the
the
ones
that
were
going
on
the
market
across
the
street
area
that
they
mentioned
at
the
950
range.
H
E
I
Yes,
I
mean,
I
think,
in
this
particular
case
we
have,
I
think
we
have
to
proceed
as
we
normally
would
do
with
any
other
property
that
comes
before
us
to
see.
You
know,
what's
sold
within
the
periods
that
we
are,
you
know
supposed
to
be
looking
at
as
the
county
does.
I
know
the
appellant
is
making.
I
You
know
a
request,
also
based
on
the
their
on
the
fact
that
they
are
a
military
family,
but
you
know,
I
think,
that
the
type
of
job
you
do
it
doesn't
really
have
anything
to
do
with
the
assessment,
and
while
I
respect-
and
I
am
grateful
of
all
the
services
that
the
military
personnel
do,
this
has
nothing
to
do
with
it,
and
I
think
you
know
this
property
was
listed
in
july
of
2024,
a
million
75
a
lot
of
them.
I
A
lot
of
the
homes
that
were
listed
within
that
period,
beginning
may
or
so
did
not
sell
because
of
the
pandemic.
A
lot
of
you
know
issues
that
we're
not
going
really.
I
Anybody
expected
this
property
yeah
was
reduced
like
a
lot
of
properties
and
finally
sold
in
december,
but
I
think
we
have
to
stick
to
the
comparables
that
we
have
for
that
particular
period,
and
you
know
I
don't
see
any
other
compelling
evidence
that
the
appellants
provided
other
than
what
we
have
on
the
package.
I
So
I'm
not
inclined
to
make
any
changes
at
this
point.
I
think
this
property,
the
sale
of
this
property,
will
be
used
for
next
year
and
I
think
the
comparables
that
the
county
provided
are,
in
my
opinion,
they're
valid,
and
you
know
I
don't
see
just
based
on
the
the
sales
price
that
is
outside
the
period
for
us
to
make
any
changes.
A
Yeah
I
just
to
throw
in
my
two
cents.
I
mean
I
kind
of
flipped
on
this
at
first
I
said.
No,
then
I
went
yes
now.
I'm
back
to
you
know
know
that
I'm
okay
with
it.
A
For
the
reasons
you
know,
mr
panorando,
that
you
just
stated,
I
mean
as
far
as
the
appraisal,
I
mean
you've
heard
me
say
this
before
on
appraisals:
the
appraisal
came
in,
you
know
slightly
higher
than
the
sales
price,
and
that's
generally,
what
you
see
99
of
the
time
on
residential
appraisals,
there's
absolutely
no
incentive
for
any
fee
based
appraiser
to
come
in
higher
to
have
to
justify
it.
So
you
know,
I
think,
the
fact
that
it
is
you
know,
a
later
sale.
It
will
affect
next
year.
G
Madam
chairman,
I
had
a
question
for
you
as
chairman.
I
thought
the
cutoff
date
for
consideration
was
january.
1,
not
the
not
the
date
that
the
department
likes
to
cut
off
for
the
efficient
writing
of
reports.
A
No,
the
actual
assessment
period
is
9
19
to
8
30,
20
20.,
and
then
they
do
the
assessments.
Then
they
will
go
and
look
at
late
sales
and
if
there's
something
compelling
or
multiple
compelling
sales,
they
will
adjust
that,
but
the
actual
in
order
to
get
they
can't
go
to
january
first
they're
trying
to
finish
the
assessments
in
november
and
get
them
out
in
the
mail.
So
I
mean
this
was
a
late
one.
G
Yeah,
I
think
the
only
difference
of
opinion
between
the
three
of
us
and
the
three
that
are
going
to
go
with
the
department
is,
I
think
it
should
be
considered
this
year,
and
I
think
you
all
are
saying
it
should
be
considered
next
year.
H
Barnes
or
you
know,
what
do
you
think
about
the
fact
that
it
was
given
the
virus?
It
did
impact
sales,
it
did
change
the
market
a
bit.
That
may
be
some
of
what
accounted
for
this
price
difference.
H
D
Very
very
quickly,
thank
you
bedrooms.
We
have
a
long,
established
and
justifiable
reason
to
not
include
bedrooms
in
the
evaluation
accounts,
because
it's
too
easy
to
make
a
closet
into
a
bedroom
or
one
bedroom
into
two,
but
since
the
but
I'm
bringing
it
up
to
address
specifically
in
the
accounts
contention
that
these
some
of
these
comparables
weren't
really
the
same
because
of
a
different
bedroom
account,
it
doesn't
really
matter.
Thank
you.
G
Yeah,
I
I
think,
mark
on
your
question.
I
I
think
that
the
the
owners
have
indicated
that
the
trend
that
they
may
have
started
has
been
continuing.
I
I
will
go
ahead
and
make
a
motion
that
we
confirmed
the
assessment
at
970.
I
A
Okay,
do
a
second
motion
is
second
with
mr
matskin,
all
in
favor
aye.
I
A
And
opposed
okay,
so
it's
four
to
two
and
that
is
without
mr
hoffman
and
mr
lawson.
So
the
county
is
confirmed
at
976
700.
A
Okay,
I
see
andrew
king
is
on
there.
He
is
he's
popped
up
the
first
case.
My
understanding,
mr
borean,
is
not
attending
correct.
Rosa.
A
A
You
sent
me
an
email
saying
that
he
was
not
attending
so
oh
yes
wanted
to
be
heard
without
right.
Okay,
so
then
we'll
move
to
that
case
that
rpc
is
zero.
Seven,
zero,
zero
one
zero
one!
Six,
the
property
is
located
at
2122
north
thomas
street.
Again
mr
gregory
borean
is
the
owner.
He
is
not
present,
so
we'll
go
ahead
with
mr
king
for
the
county,
and
you
can
tell
us
about
the
property.
L
Got
it
there
you
go.
This
is
a
one
story:
single
family,
home,
904
square
feet
above
ground,
unfinished
basement
two
bedrooms,
one
bathroom
the
year
built
was
1923,
effective
age
of
1940
and
a
quality
of
average
plus.
The
main
issue
for
this
for
the
appellant
was
the
land
valuation
for
the
subject.
Properties
lot
size
in
comparison
to
the
zoning
size
for
the
neighborhood,
the
department
values
residential
parcels
in
the
county,
with
what
is
physically
there
on
january
one
of
the
assessment
year.
Not
what
could
conceivably
be
there?
L
We
often
run
the
idea
that
the
public
has
that
all
lots
should
have
the
potential
to
have
a
new
construction
home
built
on
them,
but
mass
appraisal
can't
work
this
way
we
have
to
assess
both
the
underlying
land
and
the
improvement
that
are
upon
it.
There
are
also
a
multitude
of
houses
and
parcels
in
the
county
that
have
below
zoning
size.
Lots
yet
still
convey
for
a
proper
assessment
price
simply
for
the
fact
that
they
have
a
house
on
them.
Lots
beneath
the
zoning
threshold
can
always
file
to
the
bza.
L
So
each
parcel
is
a
unique
sec,
unique
set
of
factors,
some
of
it
being
lot
size,
but
also
other
qualities
that
may
affect
current
or
future
use
the
property
next
door
at
2126
it
sold
in
february
10th
2021,
so
a
month
after
the
assessment
date
on
the
subject
property
that
was
the
main
comparable
that
the
appellant
was
using.
It
also
sold
with
an
as-is
stipulation.
L
It's
also
only
one
sale.
You
know
we
never
want
to
rely
on
just
one
sale
for
valuing
the
bottom
of
the
market.
We
never
want
to
rely
on
one
sale
to
do
the
top
of
the
market
either.
The
property
2126
next
door
also
has
a
permit
for
a
rear
edition.
L
The
comparable
the
county
provided
comparable
number
one
is
at
2
800
square
feet
in
an
r5
zone.
That
also
currently
has
a
permit
for
a
pop-up
second
story
edition.
So
these
properties
aren't
possible
to
deal
with
they're.
Not
you
know
dead
ends.
They
don't
always
have
to
be
torn
down
to
build
a
new
property,
but
also,
as
we
often
see
in
review
cases
for
these
kinds
of
older,
smaller
unupdated
properties.
There
aren't
a
lot
of
direct
sales
comparisons.
L
They
often
sell.
You
know
off
market
to
llc's
those
sorts
of
things.
We
understand
this.
We
rely
on
our
models
and
costing
programs
for
assistance.
We
try
to
refrain
from
too
much
tweaking
on
properties
and
moving
away
from
the
basics
of
mass
appraisal
to
try
and
value
some
of
these,
the
property
was
reviewed.
There
were
some
square
footage
changes
and
some
outside
influences.
Owing
to
the
nearby
non-single-family
home
location
applied.
L
There
was
a
revision
to
the
assessment
from
767
200
to
748
600,
with
even
with
the
many
land
sales
being
in
the
lower
to
mid
800s.
The
department
feels
the
revised
value
is
fair
and
equitable.
Thank
you.
A
G
You
have
a
quick
question
was:
was
there
a
lot,
an
adjustment
of
based
upon
the
lot
size?
I
saw
one
place
where
it's
one
percent
and
then
I
saw
somewhere
else.
That
was
five
percent.
L
B
L
Sure
I
understand
this
is
a
tough
one.
You
know
with
the
property
next
door
for
selling
for
650,
but
you
know
we
are
about.
We
are
valuing
both
the
land
and
the
improvement
there.
I
think
you
know
the
appellant
would
have
us
kind
of
try
and
go
in
and
proactively
see
which
properties
are
tear
downs
and
which
are
not,
which
really
isn't
how
mass
appraisal
can
work.
L
You
know
we
have
to
look
at
what
the
underlying
land
is
worth,
even
with
some
adjustments,
we're
still
pretty
far
away
from
the
larger
land
sales
in
the
neighborhood,
and
then
we
also
have
to
value
the
improvement
upon
the
land
as
well.
So
we
feel
pretty
confident
at
748
600
for
this
property.
Thank
you.
G
I'm
I'm
good
with
the
department's
valuation
and
I
think
a
one
percent
reduction
for
lot
size
is
probably
appropriate.
It
is
undersized,
but
not
by
a
whole
lot
and
what's
it
zoned,
I
think
it's
zone
guard
five,
and
so
it's
only
it's
only
under
by
about
300
square
feet.
The
lot
is
pretty
much
a
perfect
rectangle,
so
even
by
right,
you're
going
to
be
able
to
put
in
a
pretty
nice
home.
So
I
would
be-
or
I
am
okay
with
where
the
county
is.
I
Yeah,
I
agree
I
mean
I
don't
see
anywhere
whether
we
can
make
any
further
changes.
I
think
the
county
did
a
good
job
in
this.
H
E
G
A
Opposed
okay,
you're,
okay,
so
it's
unanimous,
the
county
is
confirmed
at
the
revised
number
of
748
600..
A
Thank
you,
mr
king.
Okay,
we'll
move
on
to
the
third
case
on
the
agenda
is
rpc14018055.
The
property
is
located
at
4409
11th
street
north
and
mr
wilson,
tyler
is
the
owner
of
that
property.
Is
mr
tyler
on
the
line
he's
here?
Yes,
I
am
okay,
mr
tyler,
you
can
start
with
your
eight
minutes
and
tell
us
about
your
property,
sir.
K
So
that
often
gets
inverted
so
the
I
have
two
properties
and
just
to
give
you
the
big
context,
I
realize
you're
you're
sequencing
them,
but
they
are
side-by-side
townhouses,
so
they're
identical
units
they're
part
of
a
complex
of
14
units.
They
are
the,
I
think,
fair
to
say,
probably
the
most
modest
units
that
complex
is
in
that
north
bolston
area.
K
My
appeal
is
pretty
straightforward.
Is
that
the
for
purposes
of
the
assessment,
the
townhouse
is
valued
at
more
than
the
fair
market
value.
K
There
have
been
two
sales
in
that
complex
one,
and
I
think
I
noted
that
in
my
the
documents
I
submitted
one
in
june
of
2019,
that
was
at
565,
000,
sale
and
then
another
one
about
a
year
and
a
half
later
in
december,
of
2020
at
585
000..
I
realized
that
sort
of
bookends
the
period
of
time.
K
That
is,
I
guess,
to
be
looked
at
by
mr
king
in
the
department
in
terms
of
comparable
sales,
but
instead
of
reaching
out
for
sort
of
imperfect
comparables
in
other
complexes
in
other
areas
in
north
ballston,
we
have
two
sales,
it's
very
close
in
time.
Even
the
document
that
I
received
from
richard
millman
has
neighborhood
sales
going
up
through
the
end
of
2020
actually
into
early
2021,
and
it
includes
the
4403
11th
street
north
property.
K
So
you
have
the
most
recent
sale
in
the
complex
being
at
5.85,
which
is
you
know
in
the
assessment,
is,
I
think,
about
39
000
or
six
six
and
a
half
percent
higher
than
that
most
recent
sale.
So
the
assessments
are
identical
for
the
two
properties.
K
A
Okay,
thank
you,
sir
mr
king,
for
the
county.
L
Okay,
great,
so
these
no
inspection
was
performed
to
these
due
to
covid.
These
are
two-story
end
unit
townhomes.
I
guess
we're
doing
55
so,
but
this
will
be
the
same
argument
for
both
cases.
They're,
both
two
bedrooms,
1.5
bathrooms,
with
no
basement
the
year
built
in
effective
age,
are
both
1983
with
the
quality
of
good
minus.
The
main
issue
on
these
properties
is
the
assessment
of
sales
ratios
in
this
group
of
14
townhouses.
L
You
can
see
in
the
write-up
that
I
did
on
the
case
that
the
sales
in
2010
and
2013
we're
pretty
dead
on
with
assessment
to
sale
ratio.
The
sale
from
2016
had
a
higher
than
normal
ratio
for
2017
and
2018
than
what
we
would
like.
One
of
the
2017
sales
was
not
a
market
sale
and
the
other
2017
sale
was
right
on
for
a
7
sale
ratio.
L
The
2019
sale
is
getting
up
there
still
within
mass
appraisal
standards,
it's
higher
than
we'd
like,
but
it's
not
completely
out
of
line
the
recent
december
2020
sale,
though
outside
of
our
announcement
period
for
this
year
sitting
right
now
for
the
2021
assessment,
it
is
at
108
percent
assessment
sale
ratio
which
is
higher
than
we
would
normally
like
that
sale
is
outside
the
analysis
period,
so
it'll
be
used
in
the
2022
analysis,
but
it
is
something
we'll
watch
we'll
look
at
that
sale,
we'll
look
at
any
other
sales.
L
As
I
was
doing
the
research
for
this,
I
saw
that
1108
north
utah
street
just
came
on.
It
was
listed
for
6.39.
So
that's
a
big
difference
between
you
know
this
that
probably
being
listed
for
639
and
the
one
that
just
sold
in
december
for
5.85.
L
So
we
don't
want
to
make
any
two
any
changes
too
early
without
seeing
what
the
analysis
shows
us
at
the
end
of
the
year
and
see
if
any
other
properties
sell.
During
that
time,
we
often
don't
want
to.
You
know
over
stratify,
similar
properties
within
a
larger
townhome
area.
L
They
are
the
smallest
and
have
the
fewest
bathrooms,
which
should
play
out
in
the
cost
valuation,
but
they
do
have
the
lowest
qualities,
which
also
affects
the
cost
value
for
comparable
properties.
Like
I
said,
these
are
the
smallest
townhomes
with
the
least
bathrooms
they're,
just
the
smallest
of
of
the
market,
so
we're
not
gonna
see
direct
comps.
I
understand
you
know
that
we're
not
gonna
see
exactly
direct
comps.
Everything
is
gonna,
be
larger
and
have
more
bathrooms
bedrooms.
That
sort
of
thing
I
try
to
use
older
and
smaller
models
that
it
sold.
L
I
think
the
sale
prices
are
a
strong
indicator
for
our
assessment,
even
when
taking
account
only
the
one
bathroom
of
the
subject-
property
and
some
of
the
larger
finished
areas
again,
we'll
take
it
we'll
keep
an
eye
out
on
those
assessment
to
sale
ratios
for
the
2022
analysis
and
see
where
this
some
of
the
newer
sales
and
any
other
sales
in
a
year
shake
out.
So
for
those
reasons
we
recommend
a
confirmation
of
the
2021
assessment
of
624
000..
Thank
you.
A
Okay,
thanks
to
both
of
you,
questions
from
board
members.
D
For
the
department,
the
the
subject
in
the
three
comparables
that
we're
looking
at
the
bottom
line,
total
assessments
respective
assessments-
is
that
purely
input
to
the
software
program
that
you
have
effective
age
bathrooms
so
forth.
That
I'm
talking
about
improvements
only
is
that
again
purely
I.t
software
analysis.
L
I
mean
they're
going
to
have
different
grades,
which
is
subjective.
You
know
different
qualities
that
are
subjective.
They
all
are
on
the
same
neighborhood,
so
they
all
have
the
same
lm
you
know
looking
at
a
different
lm
or
a
different
sub
neighborhood
to
create
a
different
lm,
that's
something
we
can
play
around
with.
If
you
know
this
sale
say
this
639
sale
also
sells
for
590..
L
You
know,
then,
that's
really
an
indication
that
we
need
to
make
a
you
know
a
different
lm
break
it
out
into
a
different
analysis
to
see
where
it
goes,
but
right
now.
Currently,
this
is
all
just
going
to
be
subjective
based
on
the
quality
and
then
the
rest
is
just
going
to
be
cost
for
rebuilding
the
property.
L
L
You
know
it
is
on
the
radar
we'll
look
at
that
sale
from
december
and
then
see
where
this
newer
sale
shakes
out
and
then
see
if
any
any
other
sales
throughout
the
year,
but
that
december
2020
sale
will
take
be
taken
into
account
for
the
2022
analysis,
but
so
for
right
now,
with
the
information
that
we
have,
we
feel
confident
at
the
624
assessment
on
the
property.
Thank
you.
K
Right,
so
you
know,
if
you
go
back
to
the
prior
assessment,
that
also
was
about
the
21
dollars
above
that
sale,
value
back
in
2019,
so
but
moving
forward.
K
It
just
strikes
me
that
that
thirty,
nine
thousand
dollar
disparity
between
two
recent
sales
for
the
most
recent
sale
and
the
assessed
value
is
just
unduly
assessing
it
at
higher
than
its
fair
market
value
and
you've
got
perfect
comparables
with
those
two
units,
presumably
newer
units,
since
they
sold
or
were
probably
updated,
as
opposed
to
my
two
units,
which
have
not
really
been
updated
since
2003
to
19,
I'm
sorry
2003
2004
when
they
were
purchased
and
I've
had
minimal
work
done
to
them.
K
A
His
point
of
view,
but
wanted
to
put
my
case
before
the
board
here.
Thank
you,
okay!
Thank
you.
Okay,
it's
just
among
the
board
members.
What's
everybody
think.
D
Isn't
you
know
it
isn't
great.
I'm
sorry,
I'm
stumbling,
I
guess
my
bottom
line
was,
I
said:
well,
the
dollar
value
and
the
improvement
difference
between
the
comparables
and
subject
wasn't
enough,
given
how
superior
they
are.
But
then
I
looked
at
the
percentages.
I
see
the
closest
one
is
still
61
higher
value
improvement
than
the
subject.
So
I
calmed
down
and
decided
that
this
is.
This
is
good
stuff.
It's
the
best
we're
going
to
do.
We
have
a
dynamic
market
and
maybe
things
will.
G
Yeah
I'll
probably
be
in
the
minority
again,
you
know
our
our
goal
is
what
is
it
worth
on
january
1.,
and
so
we
have
a
comp
that
went
to
settlement
december
and
so
and
I
know
covet,
it
seems
to
me
like
covet,
knocked
prices
down
for
a
while
and
then
as
people
started,
moving
out
of
the
city
and
so
forth,
then
all
of
a
sudden
they
started
going
up,
and
I
think
that
that
you
know
again
we're
looking
for
january-
one
not
you
know
not
june
1.
G
and
and
so
I'm
kind
of
where
I
was
on
the
first
case,
and
I
would
be
inclined
to
go
with
the
owner's
opinion
of
value.
But
I
I
don't
think
that
that
that
I'll
prevail
in
that.
A
Right
I'll
just
say,
you
know,
I
understand
where
you're
going
with
the
the
january
one,
and
I
think
that
that
leans
very
heavily
on
commercial
cases
and
it's
a
different
scenario,
though,
because
you're
looking
at
year-end
financials
you're,
looking
at
income
and
whatnot
as
of
january
1.,
you
know
on
the
residential
side,
we
clearly
from
a
standpoint
of
equalization,
they
take
an
analysis
period
and
they
try
to
equalize
the
value
to
all
properties
across
the
county.
G
Right,
but
if,
if
a,
if
the
department
has
the
discretion
to
consider
a
sale
or
a
closing,
that
happened
outside
of
their
analysis
period
and
in
some
cases
they
do
it
in
some
cases
they
don't,
then
that
in
and
of
itself
is
not
equalization.
A
E
I
I
actually
before
I
looked
at
the
appellant's
estimated
value.
I
was
thinking
600
as
well,
just
based
on
the
sales
in
the
complex,
and
I
don't
think
randolph
street
land
should
be
equalized
exactly
the
same
as
11th
street
land,
which
is
much
smaller
lots
and
much
more
compact.
E
D
E
E
No
they're
bigger
lots,
so
1106
square
foot
lot
versus
an
846..
You've
got
on
a
randolph
street.
You've
got
an
outdoor
area
like
a
patio
in
front
of
the
building
which
is
kind
of
nice.
It's
got.
Most
of
these
people
have
covered
picnic
tables
in
a
fenced
in
yard
and
on
on
11th
street.
It's
too
small.
I
mean
it's.
Basically,
you
walk
it
walk
into
your
unit,
so
I
mean
those
are
the
difference
I
see
there.
Is
you
get
one?
E
That's
set
up
more
to
be
a
rental
unit
and
one
that's
set
up
more
where
you
might
actually
get
a
family
that
might
buy
that
property
and
you'll
probably
get
a
higher
price
for
it.
So
I
mean
the
difference
to
me:
is
260
square
feet
on
the
lot
I
mean
that's
30
larger
lot,
but
they
have
the
same
land
value
so
that
just
kind
of
jumps
out
at
me
as
a
problem.
D
I
I
think
dealing
I
mean
starting
to
make
changes
on
the
land
just
to
one
particular
property
without
really
looking
at
the
whole
community.
I
don't
think
would
be
equalizing.
I
would
be
more
inclined
to.
You
know,
make
an
adjustment
and
I
wouldn't
be
opposed
to
making
the
adjustment
to
what
the
appellant
is
proposing,
but
based
on
the
sales,
not
necessarily
on
you
know
what
other
factors
are
involved
like
land
or
because
you
know
if
we
make
an
adjustment
to
land.
What
are
we
picking
that?
I
Just
picking
the
number
out
of
here
five
percent
three
percent
based
on
what
we
don't
have
enough
information
to
make
changes?
You
know
yeah,
we
do
have
size
difference,
but
I
wouldn't
be
comfortable
making
any
changes
based
on
just
the
land
value,
but
I
think
the
sales
are
valid.
I
G
Yeah
jose
you
you've
often
said
that
the
difference
in
lot
size
is
indicated
and
reflected
in
the
sales
and,
as
you
know,
greg
pointed
out
something
that
frankly,
I
had
not
thought
about,
and
I
think
it's
reflected
as
jose
says
in
these
two
comps.
D
D
Parts
and
I'll
I'll
just
add
on,
I
feel
the
assessment
period
a
date
certain
a
date
certain
excluding
the
time
it
takes
to
buy
and
sell
a
property
is
kind
of
arbitrary,
but
it's
our
arbitrary
and
I
I'm
very
jealous
of
maintaining
those
dates
unless
something
extraordinary
has
happened
fairly
outside
again.
A
sale
in
june.
2019
really
means
something
that
started
in
may
or
april,
and
that's
getting
pretty
far
away
from
the
beginning
of
the
assessment
period.
D
On
the
other
hand,
the
late
sale
well
that
started
maybe
just
about
within
the
assessment
period,
so
as
arbitrary
as
it
is.
We
got
to
treat
everybody
equally
this
equally
arbitrarily,
so
I
I
don't
want
to,
I
feel
very
uncomfortable
about
aggregating
those
dates,
and
I'm
I'm
I'm
good
with
it
with
the
department
is
with
absolute
sympathy
to
my
colleagues
who
disagree.
I
Well,
thank
you
thanks
again
for
that.
You
do
bring
a
good
point
and
you
reference
to
that.
I
mean
yeah,
it's
you're
right.
We
have
to
really,
I
guess,
treat
everybody
the
way
we
are
treating
with
every
other
case
so
yeah.
While
I'm
inclined
to
do
that.
I
think
I
agree
with
you
that
it's
we
shouldn't
be
making
a
change
just
based
on
you
know,
sales
that
are
really
opposite
sides
of
the
period.
H
All
right
we're
also
addressing
the
closing
dates
of
these
properties.
I'm
doing
a
property
right
now.
That's
got
a
contingency
closing
the
contract's
there,
but
the
closing
is
not
going
to
take
place
for
a
couple
extra
months.
H
H
I
don't
know
I
was
I
was
I've
become
leaning
more
toward
where
barnes
and
you
know
gregar
on
this
one.
E
585
yeah,
I
mean
look,
look
we
from
an
assessor's
standpoint.
I
totally
get
it
it's
very
clean
right
now
we
have
one
two,
three,
four,
five,
six,
seven,
eight
nine
ten
properties
all
assessed
at
six.
Twenty
four.
Then
we
have
the
corner
units
which
are
slightly
higher
right.
So
there's
the
complex.
It's
all
neat
and
tidy
the
problem
is
the
sales
are
lower,
so
we're
gonna
have
to
adjust
all
of
these.
Now
we
do
it
here.
E
We
can
do
it
on
one
and
then
you
can
adjust
them
all
next
year,
but
the
appellant
came
in
with
the
valid
case,
based
on
these
sales.
G
E
I
mean
there's
only
there's
only
10
units
right
that
aren't
corner
units,
maybe
11
that
are
similar
size,
lots
similar
size
units.
I
mean
two
of
them
sold
within
a
within
an
18-month
period.
I
mean
what
are
the
odds
of
that
in
the
same
complex,
so
we've
got
pretty
good
data
that
we
don't
usually
see
in
a
complex
this
small.
Why
don't
we
use
it?
I
mean
we're
human
beings.
We
can
use
this
data.
E
Can
I
mean
how
many
sales
would
they
have
to
they'd
have
to
hit
right
at
right
before
august
for
this
to
work
for
you
so
we're
going
to
throw
out
or
we'll
use
december
next
year?
Let's
say
next
year
they
come
in
and
say
december.
20Th
is
in
the
analysis
period.
So
now
you
think
it's
worth
5.85,
but
but
this
year
it's
worth
624.
D
Something
lesser:
what
reverberates,
in
my
mind
is
is
is
jose
saying:
well,
we
have
this
arbitrary
he's
sympathetic
to
lowering
it,
but
by
what
amount
and
for
what
purpose
you
know
this,
I
know
this
sounds
somewhat
bureaucratic,
but
we've
got
a
lot
of
properties
to
consider
not
just
the
two
presented
by
you
know,
mr
wilson.
A
So
right
and
just
to
go
back
to
your
point
that
you're
making
mr
hoffman
about
you
know
if
they
move
it
to
december
they're,
not
going
to
move
it
to
december
from
a
standpoint
of
equalization
and
getting
assessments
out
there
I
mean
they've
generally
been
june
to
july
august
to
september.
It's
been
in
that
rare
september
to
august.
In
that
range
you
know
and
they've
moved
him
out.
You
know
further
to
be
able
to
accommodate
another
month's
worth
of
sales.
You
know
because
they
used
to
always
be
july
to
june.
A
You
know,
and
now
it's
august
to
september
you
know
I
think,
they're
trying
to
get
as
much
information
out
there.
I
mean
I
think,
where
you're
going
with
it
is,
if
you
do
one
you're
to
do
two
and
if
you're
going
to
do
two,
you
really
need
to
do
the
whole
complex
and
I'm
really
not
comfortable
myself
doing
that.
I
think
that,
just
from
a
standpoint
of
equalization
you're
not
going
to
be
able
to,
you
know
change
these
two
and
then
leave
the
other
ones.
As
is
that's
the
first.
G
A
You're
using
my
line-
and
I
appreciate
that,
but
I
I'm
gonna
disagree
with
you
on
this
one.
So,
okay,
I
think
we're
at
an
impasse,
but
it'll
depend
on
the
vote.
So
if
somebody
makes
a
motion
and
remember
if
you
don't
have
a
majority-
and
we
are
six
here
so
you
would
need
four
votes,
it
will
revert
back
to
the
county.
I
Yeah
before
any
motion
is
made,
I
just
wanted
to
make
clear
that
I'm
going
to
stick
with
what
the
county
has
right
now
for
this
year,
based
on
the
sales
that
are
outside
the
period.
A
G
G
Make
a
motion
that
we
lower
the
we
lower
the
assessed
value
should
I
do
both
parcels?
Madam
chairman,.
G
G
Okay,
I'll
go
ahead
and
make
a
motion
that
we
lower
the
assessed
value
for
rcp.
I
A
Okay,
the
motion
fails:
the
county
is
confirmed
at
the
6.
A
A
H
K
Both
two
units
as
a
part
of
a
complex
of
14
and
really
they
were
purchased
close
in
time,
2000
2004.
I
think
for
this
one
for
2003
to
get
them
confused
anyway,
so
minimal
improvement.
Again,
I
think
you've
got
the
recent
sales
that
are
that
are
the
best
determinant
of
the
market
value,
the
fair
market
value.
The
comparables
are
imperfect
because
of
lot
size
and
just
it's
a
different,
complex,
five
or
six
blocks
away
so
same.
K
E
K
D
For
the
appellant,
I
wanted
to
be
clear.
In
one
thing:
you
bought
these
units
in
early
this
millennium,
the
the
county
considers
the
effective
age
the
same
as
the
the
date
it
was
built.
Can
you
confirm
that
there's
been
no
measurable
improvements
before
or
or
during
your
tenure
of
ownership.
D
But
no
capital,
okay,
what's
insurance
misunderstood
thanks
very
much.
L
Just
the
same
that
we'll
be
monitoring
the
sales
in
the
neighborhood,
but
we
feel
confident
in
624
for
this
year.
Thank
you.
A
A
G
Yeah
I
just
I'll
go
ahead
and
make
a
motion,
but
I
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
mr
king
understands
that
my
criticism
is
not
of
the
job
that
he's
doing
he's.
He
does
great
work
and-
and
I
know
how
difficult
it
was-
and
I
think,
madam
chairman,
it's
even
more
difficult
this
year,
because
everybody's
not
in
their
main
office,
you
know
and
everyone's
working
at
home
and
and
you
know
I-
I
have
great
sympathy
for
the
difficulty
that
the
county
employees
have
been
dealing
with
in
this
time.
G
I
just
want
to
state
that
that
I'm
not
at
all
being
critical
of
the
job,
so
I'm
adam
chairman
with
on
rcp.
A
L
You
know
town
homes
are
mostly
per
per
home
site,
but
again
you
know
now
that
this
is
brought
up.
It
is
on
our
radar,
so
we
can
take
a
closer
look
at
it,
whether
that
would
exactly
shake
out
and
land.
You
know
it
just
gets
more
difficult.
You
know
when
you
start
tweaking
too
much
and
you
start
over
stratifying
properties.
You
know,
I
definitely
think
we
could
move
towards
a
different
lm
for
next
year.
How
how
deep
that
would
get
you.
L
You
know,
because
we
have
to
look
at
the
overall
value
too
it's
hard
to
pull
out
t's
out
all
those
different
values.
You
know
between
land
and
improvement,
with
tweaking
too
much
stuff
gets
lost
in
the
camera
system.
L
It
would
be
all
something
that
we
have
to
look
at,
but
we
we
normally
don't
change
land
values
within
a
larger
townhome
community.
You
know
that's
made
up
of
multiple
townhome
communities.
We
usually
don't
change
that
much
for
land
value,
but
it's
always
something
that
we
can
look
at.
A
A
J
In
the
prior
proceedings
at
the
department
level,
the
board
had
assumed
the
county
appointed
to
three
other
comps.
They
appear
to
have
abandoned
their
reliance
on
those
three
properties
at
this
stage,
but
I
note,
as
I
noted
in
my
papers,
that's
presumably
because
those
properties
were
not
comparable.
J
One
of
them
was
a
property
in
the
the
clarendon
brompton's
development,
I
believe,
but
in
clarendon,
rather
than
boston,
much
more
desirable
area,
a
much
larger
boss
size,
something
like
simply
larger
than
my
home
looks
like
1338
versus
920
50
larger
another
comparable
in
the
original
list
that
was
abandoned
by
the
county
was
some
four
or
500
square
feet
larger
than
my
home
and
much
closer
to
the
balsa
metro
station
and
in
the
boston,
brompton
development,
again
generally,
a
more
desirable
development,
the
third
property
and,
again,
this
is
of
the
list
that
the
department
appears
to
have
abandoned.
J
J
I
also
note
that
in
the
border
civilization
comparable
sheet,
the
county
refers
to
the
unit
that
sold
a
couple
years
ago
in
my
development
unit,
a
which
sold
at
965
000..
I'm
puzzled
why
they
would
cite
a
965
000
sale,
which
is
less
than
I
paid
to
support
an
assessment
of
over
1
million
dollars.
Again,
that
seems
to
confirm
that
the
price
should
be
lowered
in
the
assessment.
J
I
also
note,
as
I
put
in
my
submission
as
to
the
fair
market
value,
the
numbers
just
seem
to
be
flatly
wrong
here.
This
is
the
second
year
in
a
row
that
the
department
has
increased
my
land
value
by
5
and
20
and
25
000,
it's
now
supposedly
up
by
more
than
fifty
thousand
dollars
and
more
than
eleven
percent
over
my
assessment
from
2019.
J
I
note
in
that
regard
that
I
did
file
on
a
pure
la
appeal
last
year
that
was
never
heard
by
the
board.
When
I
did
speak
to
mr
king,
he
who's
kind
enough
to
suggest
that
if
the
board
corrects
the
current
year
valuation,
because
the
issues
are
the
same,
it
could
also
correct
the
2020
appeal
that
was
never
heard.
J
J
J
F
J
J
purchasable
for
600.
I
don't
believe
it
supports
the
evaluation
as
much
as
8
100,
more
than
my
immediate
neighbors,
but
the
bigger
issue.
As
I
understand
and
frankly
my
bigger
concern
as
to
what
is
driving
the
reported
difference
in
valuation
is
the
patio
land
all
will
be
lost.
All
these
homes
are
40
by
20
800
square
feet
with
120
square
feet
of
land
for
a
total
of
920
square
feet.
Despite
that,
the
county
is
assessing
me
more
based
on
space.
That
appears
to
belong
to
the
hoa,
of
course,
that
land
should
have
value.
J
Of
course
it
should
be
taxed.
It
should
be
taxed
as
part
of
the
common
land
belonging
to
the
homeowners
association.
Not
to
me
personally,
as
mr
you
noted
thank
you
for
noting
that
the
flat
was
corrected
here.
My
flat
from
2016
shortly
before
I
closed
on
the
home,
does
not
show
the
sort
of
easement
that
the
county
has
relied
upon
in
its
packet.
I
don't
know
where
flat
came
from,
but
that
original
flat
they
relied
upon
to
support
that
is
no
longer
there
and
the
current
platform.
J
The
most
current
plan
that
I'm
aware
of
from
five
years
ago
does
not
show
any
sort
of
easement,
but
in
any
event,
I
really
want
to
direct
the
board,
and
this
is
an
issue
that
I
know
was
mentioned
by
one
of
the
members
at
a
hearing
two
years
ago.
It's
against
virginia
law
to
assess
value
based
on
land
that
you
don't
own.
J
So,
to
sum
up
very
briefly,
this
market
value,
my
assessment-
is
an
in
excess
of
fair
market
value,
the
comparables
that
I've
identified
and
the
board
has
agreed
to
do
not
support
it
and
the
again,
it's
also
inequitable
in
relation
to
my
neighbors.
It
says
higher
than
them
the
justification
the
county
made
for
that
is
based
upon
an
inaccurate,
plat
and
also
based
upon
in
improper
considerations.
J
L
Good
morning
board,
this
is
a
three
and
a
half
story.
N
unit
townhome,
three
bedrooms,
3.5
bathrooms
with
an
integral
garage
the
year
built
in
effective
days,
are
both
2001
and
they
have
an
excellent
plus
quality.
The
appellant
is
corrected.
The
land
value
on
the
subject.
Property
has
increased
25
000
for
the
past
two
years.
That's
based
on
the
sales
analysis
performed
in
a
larger
neighborhood.
These
kinds
of
adjustments
are
the
basis
of
mass
appraisal.
L
The
fireplace
value
is
based
on
the
existence
of
the
gas
lines
in
the
venting,
not
on
the
actual
use.
As
a
gas
fireplace
it's
no
different
than
when
property
owners
of
wood
burning
fireplaces
tell
us,
they
don't
use
it
or
it
needs
to
be
cleaned
or
whatever
else.
L
As
for
the,
as
for
the
patio
per
the
platt,
the
pellet
does
have
exclusive
use
of
the
easement
underlying
the
patio,
even
though
it
is
on
hoa
land.
The
appellant
is
not
being
assessed
for
the
underlying
land,
but
is
being
assessed
for
the
materials
in
the
construction
of
the
patio.
As
the
subject
property
has
that
exclusive
use
of
that
piece
of
land
and
then
as
for
the
comparables,
you
know
there
are
a
lot
of
various
town
houses
in
the
area
that
can
support
or
reject
the
department's
value.
L
Depending
on
what
values
you
look
at,
each
property
is
made
of
various
components,
including
square
footage,
renovations,
bathrooms
and
garages.
I
think
the
department's
comparable
properties
are
pretty
strong
and
healthy
for
the
area
and
do
a
good,
a
good
job
of
confirming
the
appellants
2021
assessment.
L
So,
for
all
those
reasons,
the
county
recommends
a
confirmation
of
the
assessment
at
one
million,
eight
thousand
nine
hundred
dollars.
Thank
you.
A
G
L
E
Yeah,
mr
king,
I
I
think
the
appellant's
issue
is
that
his
neighbor,
that
they
share
the
party
wall,
that
they
don't
have
a
fireplace
and
he
does
have
a
fireplace,
but
the
price
for
the
value
of
the
fireplace
is
too
high.
Can
you
confirm
that
the
neighbor
does
not
have
a
fireplace?
It
just
seems
odd
that
one
would
and
one
wouldn't.
J
E
I
guess
it's
rpc
1408
team
102.
J
E
L
What's
the
driving
factor,
so
the
appellant
has
the
patio
which
is
about
77
80
in
in
value,
so
the
cost
for
that
the
patio
the.
E
J
D
J
D
Okay,
great
so
doesn't
that
mean
this
is
for
anybody
who's
qualified
to
answer
if
it's
a
homeowner's
association,
what
I'm
getting
at
is
your
site
of
state
law
and
state
law.
Excuse
me
that
people
can't
be
assessed
for
for
the
value
of
land
that
they
don't
own
and
a
homeowners
association.
By
definition,
the
person
who
owns
the
personal,
the
improvement
property
by
definition,
owns
the
land
underneath
it
and
surrounding
it.
J
I
I'm
not
sure
I
understand
your
question.
The
only
land
that
I'm
shown
on
the
deed
and
on
the
flat
is
920
square
feet
and
I've
been
assessed
on
a
patio
that
extends
beyond
that.
If
I
think
to
get
to
your
point
where
that
value,
don't
I
own
a
share
in
the
homeowners
association,
I
think,
as
one
of
eight
homeowners
I
own
a
one-eighth
share
in
the
hoa's
interest
and
whatever
is
beyond
my
920
square
feet
should
be
allocated
perratta
to
the
other
eight
homes
in
the
hoa,
all
of
which
have
patios
or
other
seven.
J
I
own
only
920
square
feet,
that's
the
800
square
feet
or
my
40
by
20
foot
home
stands
and
then
120
square
feet
beyond
that,
some
of
which
is
patio
and
some
of
which,
I
believe,
is
not
it's
just
a
walkway
by
the
front
door
and
such
my
position
is
the
only
land
I
own
is
at
920
square
feet.
That's
all
that
virginia
law
permits
my
assessment
to
be
based
upon.
J
I
don't
believe
they
dispute
that,
but
I
believe
they
are
trying
to
charge
me
for
patio
improvements
that
extend
beyond
my
lot
line.
As
indicated
on
the
flat.
L
Yeah,
so
I'm
not
too
sure
about
some
of
the
hoa
legal
distinctions,
but
I
would
say
the
patio
is
fenced
in
for
the
homeowner.
You
know,
I
would
think
that
the
homeowner
would
pay
for
replacement
of
that.
You
know
which
would
go
towards
cost
of
the
structure.
L
Third,
you
know
we
are
valuing
them
only
for
the
920
square
feet,
we're
valuing
them
per
home
site,
so
he's
not
being
assessed
for
the
underlying
land
of
the
additional
patio
space
that
extends
into
hoa
land,
and
then
I
would
also
bring
up
you
know,
possibly
some
kind
of
argument
of
you
know,
town
homes
that
we
see
have
balconies,
that
might
extend
over,
say
the
air
rights
of
hoa
land.
That
would
clearly
be
something
that
would
be
part
of
the
improvements
on
a
home.
L
I
I
have
one
for
the
for
mr
huff.
One
of
the
points
that
you
brought
up
is
that
the
fireplace
one
of
them
is
the
portable
fireplace
that
should
not
be
adding
value
to
the
property.
Can
you
clarify
that?
Do
you
have
one
fireplace
or
two
fireplaces.
J
There
are
two,
my
understanding
is
all
the
units.
All
these
homes
have
a
fireplace
in
the
living
room.
I
also
have
a
portable
electronic
fireplace
on
in
the
first
floor.
J
It
was
that
way
when
I
bought
it.
I
I've.
No,
I
don't
know
for
certain
I
that
may
well
be
the
case.
I
don't
know
I've.
Never
in
my
time,
in
five
years
of
ownership,
I've
never
had
occasion
to
try
to
activate
a
gas
fireplace.
I've
only
had
the
electric
and
only
use
that
so
I
can't
speak
to
the
infrastructure
that
may
or
may
not
be
there.
I
L
I
think
the
comparables
are
strong
in
this
area.
You
know
they're
pretty
similar
in
size,
bathroom
square
footage,
garage
space
and
there's
some
pretty
high
values
for
sale
properties.
So
I
think
the
department's
value
of
one
million-
eight
thousand
nine
hundred-
is
supported
by
the
sales
and
we
ask
that
you
can
permit
for
this
year.
Thank
you.
J
Thank
you.
The
department
again
has
acknowledged
that
the
copper
bowls
are
very
similar
in
size
and
square
footage
and
location
and
everything
else
and,
as
I
noted
all
those
comparables
range
between
62
dollars,
less
than
my
assessment
and
a
hundred
ninety
one
thousand
seven
hundred
dollars
less
than
my
assessment
as
to
the
patio,
I've
explained
why
land
that
I
don't
own
under
virginia
law
cannot
be
included
in
my
assessment.
For
those
reasons,
I
would
ask
that
my
assessment
for
this
year,
as
well
as
last
year,
which
was
not
ruled
upon
despite
my
appeal,
be
reduced.
E
I
think
I've
heard
this
case
three
times
now,
so
pretty
familiar
with
the
arguments
that
come
up
every
year.
The
way
I
see
the
patio
is
you've
got
exclusive
use
and
enjoyment
of
that
with
property,
just
like
you
would
in
a
reserved
parking
space
which
the
county
also
attributes
value.
To
usually
those
reserve
parking
spaces
are
nho.
Land
is
hoa
land
as
well.
E
So
I
see
it
the
same
way
if
it
was
if
the
hoa
was
taking
offense
and
sending
notices
and
threatening
legal
action,
and
you
had
to
take
the
fence
down
and
remove
the
patio
I'd
see
I'd,
look
at
it
in
a
different
way,
but
it
looks
like
it's
part
of
the
property
and
it's
part
of
the
value
of
the
property.
So
I'm
okay
with
the
county.
A
Additionally,
just
to
clarify
one
thing
that
the
the
homeowner
just
said
to
lower
for
this
year
and
for
last
year
I
mean
that
wouldn't
happen,
even
if
the
board
chooses
to
do
it,
it's
only
for
this
year.
Only
so
I
just
want
to
make
that
part
of
the
record,
but
go
ahead,
mr
gates,
I
think
you
had
something
to
say.
H
G
G
And
so
I
think
what
the
county
has
done
here
is
totally
appropriate
and
I
would
be
declined
to
uphold
the
assessed
value
that
the
county
has
put.
I
I
just
wanted
to
clarify
to
greg's
question
as
far
as
the
fireplaces
for
the
house
next
door.
That
property
also
has
two
fireplaces
just
like
this
one,
but
overall
yeah,
I'm
okay
with
the
county.
G
H
G
A
A
By
mr
yates,
all
in
favor
all
right,
okay,
it's
unanimous.
The
county's
confirmed
a
million
eight
thousand
nine
hundred
dollars.
Thank
you,
mr
huff.
Thank
you,
mr
king.
Does
anybody
else
have
any
additional
business?
Yes,
mr
lawson.
G
G
J
G
H
D
H
G
A
E
Yeah
right,
that's
that's
one
of
the
toughest
neighborhoods
there's
just
so
many
weird
lots
and
and
things
that
have
been
built
over
the
years
and
from
the
80s
and
they're
still
there
as
rental
units
now
and
then
you
get
new
products.
So
that's
I'm
always
going
to
carry
greater
weight
to
same
complex
sales,
just
in
my
opinion,
just
because
everything's
so
weird,
it's
just
different
yeah.