E&R 2001-06-18
I
I
I
~
MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION AND REVIEW
JUNE 18, 2001
Page 291
The New Hanover County Board of Equalization and Review met on Monday, June 18,
2001, at 1:30 p.m. in the Assembly Room of the New Hanover County Courthouse, 24 North
Third Street, Wilmington, North Carolina. The purpose of the meeting was to hear appeals filed
by property owners regarding their tax value assessments.
Members present were: Chairman Ted Davis, Jr.; Vice-Chairman Robert G. Greer;
Commissioner William A. Caster; Commissioner Nancy H. Pritchett; Tax Administrator Robert
Glasgow; Tax Appraisal Supervisor Larry Bolick; Assistant County Attorney Holt Moore; and
Deputy Clerk Teresa P. Elmore.
Commissioner Pritchett was present for the first five hearings and voted on those appeals.
Commissioner Boseman was not present for the first six cases and did not vote on those appeals.
Commissioner Davis called the meeting to order and welcomed everyone present.
Appellants were informed that the Board would make decisions following the hearings and
notification of each decision would be mailed within a week.
TAX APPEAL PRESENTATIONS
TAX APPEAL - ST. JOHN'S MUSEUM OF ART, 3151 SOUTH 17111 STREET,
WILMINGTON, NC, TAX MAP NUMBER R06500-003-099-000
Tax Administrator Robert Glasgow reported that the properties consist of 9.38 acres on
1 ~ Street Extension and a building that was 12 % completed as of January 1, 2001. The
construction permit for the building has a value of $9,000,000. The land is valued at $337,677.
A partial value of $1,200,000 has been assessed on the building based on the percent of
construction completed as of January 1, 2001.
Mr. Russ Bryan, the attorney representing St. John's Museum, presented the museum's
appeal of the Tax Administrator's decision to deny the application for tax exemption. He spoke
concerning NCGS 105-278.7, which is the law for exclusion of taxes for non-profit organizations.
It states that buildings and land must be "wholly and exclusively used by its owner for non-profit
educational, scientific, literary, or charitable purposes as defined in subsection (f)." Subsection
(f) refers to an educational purpose as "one that has as its objective the education or instruction
of human beings; it comprehends the transmission of information and training or development of
the knowledge or skills of individual persons."
Mr. Bryan stated that although the museum is under construction, the property has been
used for several educational purposes during the last two years. In support of his argument, he
used the Warwick case in Alamance County where 5 acres was undeveloped and unused with no
intentions for a building. The North Carolina Court of Appeals found that the property was for
recreational use and it was sufficient to define exempt status for religious purposes. Since the
9bG
~
MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION AND REVIEW
JUNE 18, 2001
Page 292
natural area was reserved for a spiritual retreat, they found that the use of a buffer zone was
reasonable and necessary for its use as a religious institution. Mr. Bryan applied the case law for
religious purpose doctrine to support the museum's use for educational purposes, since
recreational use was sufficient to give an organization exemption from taxes. In the Alamance
case, a church youth group had used the property for a snowball fight during the year and a
meeting was held on the property at one point. The courts ruled that the use was sufficient to find
the property wholly and exclusively used for religious purpose and was given the exemption.
Also, the courts found the use by the homeless men from a shelter who visited the property for
church services and for walks to be sufficient for the intent of religious purpose.
Southview Presbyterian Church in Fayetteville, North Carolina, appealed the decision of
the Cumberland County Board of Equalization and Review concerning 20 acres of property. Plans
were drawn for the unused 15 acres, but the church was not built at the time of appeal. The North
Carolina Court of Appeals found that the uses by neighborhood children for badminton,
volleyball, and softball, as well as Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts meetings and camping, were found
sufficient for exemption for charitable purpose for the church.
In the appeal by Seminary Incorporated in Wake County, the courts ruled that the cafeteria
used partially by the public and by the seminary was sufficient for exemption for religious
purpose.
In the appeal by Harrison in Guilford County, a non-contiguous lot was given exemption
for religious purpose because the church held meetings on the property. The church purchased
the lot in 1938 and intended to build on it in 1944. Some of the land was cleared and lights and
benches were placed on it. The church met occasionally on the property for Sunday School and
other functions.
Mr. C. Reynolds Brown, Director of St. John's Museum of Art, stated that the property
at 17th and Independence has been used for educational programs throughout the two years of
planning and construction. Programs included a mural project where 400 children participated
and displayed their art for tour groups. An educational program in architectural design and tours
of the historic Civil War battleground were provided on site for hundreds of people. He
concluded that the site had been used for the mission of the museum to educate citizens of the
region in visual arts, history, and culture of North Carolina.
In the assessment support, Tax Appraisal Supervisor Bolick stated that the NCGS 105-285
dictates that the ownership and true value of property shall be determined as of January 1 of the
tax year. Statute 278.7 requires that "the building, the land they actually occupy, and additional
adjacent land... must be wholly and exclusively used by its owner for nonprofit educational,
scientific, literary, or charitable purposes." Although this site and other locations in the county
have historical significance, only three properties are designated with historical exemptions and this
site is not included. It is further cited in case law that "property must be presently used for an
C1b2
I
I
I
-..,
MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION AND REVIEW
JUNE 18, 2001
Page 293
exempt purpose." The County has consistently identified exempt properties as those that are
wholly and exclusively used for their intended purposes as of January 1. Since the museum
building was only 12 percent completed on January 1, 2001, it does not qualify for exemption.
Tax Appraisal Supervisor Bolick concluded that the property does not fit the guidelines in
the North Carolina Machinery Act for qualification for an exemption in 2001. The museum is
under construction and cannot be used for its intended purposes at this time. Based on previously
denied exemptions for similar conditions, and to maintain consistency, he recommended that the
Board deny the exemption.
Chairman Davis asked if the activities held on the site were considered for the exemption.
Tax Administrator Glasgow responded that he considered the use of the property at that time
was not for its intended purpose, which is his reason for the denial. In looking at the case laws,
the Worsley's decision referred to its present use and not its intended use. In North Carolina,
unless property is presently used for tax exempt purposes, it is not tax exempt. The use of the
property controls the status of the exemption. He explained that sometimes contiguous property
is used for parking and can be exempt. In the past, New Hanover County has not given exemption
to churches while they were being constructed. If property is used for religious purpose as of
January 1, it is considered exempt. However, the intended use does not qualify for exemption
under North Carolina law.
Mr. Bryan rebutted that the present use of the site has been for several educational purposes
as allowed in the case laws presented. He had been to several meetings held on the construction
site and he considered the site was presently used for educational purposes.
Vice Chairman Greer asked if the exemption request was for both the land and the part of
the building that was completed.
Mr. Bryan responded that the request is for both properties.
Chairman Davis asked whether the museum will qualify for exemption if it is completed
by January 1, 2002.
Tax Administrator Glasgow responded if the exemption is denied now, they will have to
reapply for the exemption next year. He further explained that in the past when new churches are
constructed, and they are having services in the structure or if the County can determine that the
property is being used, an exemption has been granted. However, an exemption was not granted
to the church on Shipyard Boulevard when they placed a cross on the property, because the
property was not used for any other purpose.
8EG ~
MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION AND REVIEW
JUNE 18, 2001
Page 294
Vice Chairman Greer asked how the County determines which facility to tax if a church was
moving into a new facility as of January 1.
Tax Administrator Glasgow responded that the use of the facility on January 1 determines
the exempt status.
At the conclusion of the hearings on this date, Tax Administrator Glasgow reminded the
Board that the Tax Department will need to be consistent in applying exemptions as they have done
in the past.
Vice Chairman Greer commented that he felt St. John's Museum qualifies for the exemption
because they were having educational programs on site.
Commissioner Pritchett stated that the law requires the site to be "wholly and exclusively
used for educational, scientific, literary, and charitable purposes." While the building is being
constructed, the educational programs are not the exclusive use of the property. She felt that once
the building is finished, the property would qualify for exemption.
Tax Administrator Glasgow commented that the Baptist church on Princess Place Drive was
nearly constructed, but it was not given an exemption in 1997 because of being under construction
as of January 1, 1997.
Vice Chairman Greer asked if the church was providing tours or having Bible classes on
the property while it was being constructed.
Tax Administrator Glasgow responded that he was unaware of any such use.
Motion: Vice Chairman Greer MOVED to approve the request for exemption, but the motion
failed for lack of a second.
Motion: Commissioner Caster MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Pritchett, to deny the
exemption as recommended by the Tax Administrator. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED 3 TO
1.
Voting Aye: Commissioner Caster
Commissioner Pritchett
Chairman Davis
Voting Nay: Vice Chairman Greer
I b:;
L c~
I
I
I
...,
MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION AND REVIEW
JUNE IS, 2001
TAX APPEAL - BUENA VISTA SUN, LLC, 3700 HIGHWAY 421, WILMINGTON, NC,
TAX MAP NUMBER R03200-002-001-014
Tax Administrator Glasgow reported that the subject property is a concrete sided 65,993
square foot building consisting of a warehouse and a 15,682 square foot office area. The building
was built in 1983. The total assessed value is $1,815,125.
Page 295
Mr. Jim Prince, Vice-President of Finance for Buena Vista Sun, stated that the assessed
value is in excess of the purchase price of $980,000. The property was purchased in September
2000 with the intent of renting the warehouse space. However, the property has not been rented
and it is on the market for sale. Some interest in the property has been generated around the $1.1
and $1.2 million range. He requested the Board to reduce the assessed value to $1,200,000.
In the assessment support, Tax Appraisal Supervisor Larry Bolick stated that the property
is assessed in accordance with other land and buildings along Highway 421 North, an industrial
corridor in New Hanover County. The property is currently listed for sale by Creative Properties
for $1,875,000. The previous owner may have been under a time constraint to sell the property
before the end of the year. He recommended to uphold the value of $1,815,125.
At the conclusion of the hearings on this date, Tax Appraisal Supervisor Bolick informed
the Board that the broker who handled the sale of the property had told him the seller was under
compulsion to sell before the end of the year. The assessed value is consistent with other properties
along the corridor and it is further supported by the listed sale price of $1.8 million.
Motion: Commissioner Pritchett MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Caster, to uphold the
assessed value of$1,815,125, as recommended by the Tax Appraisal Supervisor. Upon vote, the
MOTION CARRIED 4 TO O.
TAX APPEAL - GEORGE HARRISS ENTERPRISES, INC., 2306 AND 2312 NEW
VILLAGE WAY, WILMINGTON, NC, TAX MAP NUMBER R0340S-003-022-000 AND
R0340S-003-023-000
Tax Administrator Robert Glasgow reported that the property consists of two lots, 7 A and
7B, at NorthChase Commercial Center. One lot has an one-story 3,501 square foot office building
constructed in 1990, which is currently used as an insurance office. The assessed value of 2306
New Village Way is $394,032, and the value of the adjoining vacant lot at 2312 New Village Way
is $71,816.
Mr. George Harriss, the property owner, was unable to attend the hearing and had
requested the Tax Administrator to give his appeal. Tax Administrator Glasgow stated that the
appellant's appeal was based on the fact that the assessed value was in excess of the purchase price.
The office building and adjoining lot were purchased in February 2000 for $318,000. An appraisal
from Worsley Real Estate Company placed the market value of the property at $315,000.
008 ~
MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION AND REVIEW
JUNE 18, 2001
Page 296
In the assessment support, Tax Appraisal Supervisor Bolick stated that the Tax Department
reviewed their records of the property and had made several corrections. The property was
assessed by calculating the front footage while other lots in the vicinity were priced by square
footage; and the height of the building was listed incorrectly. After making the corrections, he
revised the recommended assessment to $322,263 for the property with the building and $56,729
for the vacant lot. The revised values are consistent with other property values in the
neighborhood. Additionally, the appraisal provided by Mr. Worsley used a lease-fee method to
determine the value, while the County had used comparable sales.
Tax Administrator Glasgow reported that the changes were presented to Mr. Harriss, who
felt the assessments were still too high.
Motion: At the conclusion of the hearings on this date, Commissioner Davis MOVED,
SECONDED by Commissioner Pritchett, to uphold the assessed value of $322,263 and $56,729,
as corrected and recommended by the Tax Appraisal Supervisor. Upon vote, the MOTION
CARRIED 4 TO O.
TAX APPEAL - GEORGE R. HOWARD, JR., 2032 SCRIMSHAW PLACE, LANDFALL
SUBDIVISION, WILMINGTON, NC, TAX MAP NUMBER R05114-009-158-000
Tax Administrator Robert Glasgow reported that the property is a vacant lot in Landfall
subdivision. The assessed value is $153,890.
Mr. George R. Howard, Jr., the property owner, spoke concerning his purchase of the
property. In May 1999, the Country Club of Landfall purchased the recreation club assets from
Landfall Associates for $14 million plus revenues from new memberships for a seven year period.
In Spring 2000, Landfall Associates' sales promotion for the new lots around the Nicklaus Nine
Hole Golf Course consisted of a package deal that included membership in the Country Club of
Landfall. On April 25, 2000, he purchased the lot at 2032 Scrimshaw Place under the package
deal for $147,000. However, his closing statement and the tax stamp did not separate the two
purchases. He believed that the assessed value of the land was the purchase price of $147,074.21,
less the membership fee of $45,000. If the membership fee was not deducted, he thought he would
be paying taxes on the land twice, once as a member of the club paying dues and assessments for
the recreational facilities and a second time when paying taxes to New Hanover County. He
requested the Board to reduce the value of the land to $103,290.
Mr. Howard also stated that Phase II properties near the club house overlooked the least
attractive land and golf course area in Landfall and he disagreed that the new properties should
have the same assessed value as the established and more attractive areas of Landfall. Since his
lot did not exist on January 1, 1999, he did not agree that the lot should have the same value as
existing property.
In the assessment support, Tax Appraisal Supervisor Bolick stated that all values were
t". '?
"'\ . . .''''~- "
j t./ C.
I
I
I
~
MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION AND REVIEW
JUNE 18, 2001
Page 297
established in 1999 based on fair market values in Landfall and all other subdivisions, and no
consideration was given to any lot for membership fees with a country club. The established value
of lots in Landfall was $150,000 and it applied to any new lot. The County cannot arbitrarily
change the schedule of values because a developer has changed the marketing strategy by including
a membership. Lot values are determined by whether the land is located on or off a golf course.
Tax Administrator Glasgow explained that Mr. Howard was not paying taxes on his
membership with the club. The membership fee was not included in his purchase price shown on
real estate stamp tax as required by the General Statutes. The stamp value of the property, as
recorded with the Register of Deeds, was $169,000.
Chairman Davis clarified that none of the comparable sales or the assessed values of
properties in Landfall included membership fees, which means basically, Mr. Howard purchased
his property at a good price.
Mr. Howard explained that his offer to purchase and the contract showed the purchase price
of$169,290 included the country club membership; however, the closing statement did not list the
membership fee. Landfall Associates paid the fee to the club from the amount he paid for the
property. He could have purchased the land without the membership by taking $45,000 off the
purchase price. He pointed out that a person can live in Landfall without being a member of the
club, but he cannot be a member of the club without owning property in Landfall.
Tax Appraisal Supervisor Bolick stated that the assessed value was not based on the
purchase price. If the Board was to remove the membership fee from Mr. Howard's assessed
value, it would not be fair and equitable to other property owners in Landfall. None of the lot
values established in 1999 included the membership fee. Landfall Associates has dropped prices
from $150,000 and $160,000 to $110,000 and $120,000 since the 1999 valuation. The free
membership fees were used as an enticement to purchase property. The assessed value cannot be
changed when the selling price has dropped in a non-evaluation year. If Mr. Howard's property
value is reduced because of the membership fee, other properties in Landfall will need to be
reduced.
Mr. Howard reiterated that his assessed value should be less because of the less attractive
nine hole golf course and proposed nursing home near his property. He requested the Board to
reduce his valuation by $20,000 because he felt his property was less desirable than other golf
course lots in Landfall.
At the conclusion of the hearings on this date, Commissioner Caster asked if the new golf
course and the proposed retirement center near the conservation areas would affect the value of Mr.
Howard's property.
Assistant Appraisal Supervisor Clemmons responded that appraisal methods do not consider
GDS
~
MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION AND REVIEW
JUNE 18, 2001
Page 298
"proposed plans" for surrounding properties. After the retirement facility is constructed, the
appraisal staff will consider the effects on property values. He also pointed out that Mr. Howard's
deed or sales contract did not show he paid $45,000 in membership fees.
Motion: Commissioner Pritchett MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Caster, to uphold the
assessed value of $153,890, as recommended by the Tax Appraisal Supervisor. Upon vote, the
MOTION CARRIED 4 TO O.
TAX APPEAL - LANDFALL COUNCIL OF ASSOCIATIONS, INC., PARCELS WITHIN
LANDFALL SUBDIVISION, WILMINGTON, NC, TAX MAP NUMBER R05114-009-174-
000 THROUGH R05114-009-180-000, R05114-009-188-000, R05114-009-189-000, R05100-
002-022-000, AND R05118-007-012-000
Tax Administrator Robert Glasgow reported that the parcels are in Landfall Subdivision.
They consist of the following Conservation Easements: Tract C with 9.17 acres assessed at
$366,796; Tract D with 2.42 acres assessed at $120,999; Tract E with 1.57 acres assessed at
$78,499; Tract F with 11.25 acres assessed at $393,746; Tract G with 7.71 acres assessed at
$346,947; Tract H with 98.26 acres assessed at $2,456,475; Tract I with 16.04 acres assessed at
$561,394; and Tract J with .67 acre assessed at $33,500. The Swamp Forest Conservation Area
with 39.91 acres is assessed at $5,987; Conservation Area Pembroke Jones Park with 6.56 acres
is assessed at $491,995; and Landfall Associates' Maintenance Building with 1.66 acres is assessed
at $443,622. The total assessed value is $5,299,960. Most of the properties listed as common
areas were taken out, but the properties previously identified as future development were changed
to conservation easements. Those properties were reduced in some cases to 50 % of the actual total
market value. They will argue that the value should have been included in the total value of the
properties within the 1,834 property owners in Landfall Subdivision.
Mr. Jeffrey P. Keeter, the attorney at law representing Landfall Council of Association
(Council), said he was appealing the tax valuation and the allocation of certain common areas that
have been deeded to the Landfall Council of Association.
Mr. Keeter stated that some of the conservation easement areas in question were part of the
overall plan in order to obtain the permitting for the development of the 200 acre nine hole golf
course and residential lots. In 1998 the US Army Corps of Engineers required Landfall Associates
to designate areas for mitigation wetlands. In April 1999, Landfall Associates deeded 150 acres
of the conservation easements to the Northeast New Hanover County Conservancy, a non-profit
entity in North Carolina. The goals of the Conservancy are to preserve and maintain conservation
and wildlife areas for educational and preservation purposes.
In December 2000, those parcels were deeded by Landfall Associates to the Landfall
Council of Association, subject to the restrictions that were placed on the deed of easements. The
deed cites "Whereas the grantee, a non-profit corporation whose purpose is to preserve and
conserve natural areas for aesthetics, scientific, charitable, and educational purposes, grantor
lUS
I
I
I
,~:<:
~
~, -, "'. r
MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION AND REVIEW
JUNE 18, 2001
Page 299
grants, conveys, and establishes for grantee a conservation easement which shall authorize the
grantee to enjoin and prohibit any activity on or use of the property, which is prohibited by
paragraph 1 below and enter the property at a reasonable times to observe and document the state
of preservation." This means that the property cannot have any construction or placement of
buildings, roads, signs, billboards, or other structures, no dumping or placing of soil, excavation,
dredging, removal of gravel, or any materials or destruction or removal of wetland plants. The
easement is exclusively for the use of the grantee and will be binding on the grantor and its
successors and assignee. Essentially, it is property that is bound tightly by the restrictions.
NCGS 105-275(12), the exemption statute for tax purposes, designates special classes of
property that shall not be listed, appraised, or taxed. Specifically, exempt property is "real
property owned by non-profit corporations or associations exclusively held and used by its owner
for educational or scientific purposes of protected natural area (and for the purposes of the section
the term protected natural areas means nature reserves, or parking) which all types of wild nature,
flora, fauna, and biotic communities are preserved for observation and study. "
Landfall Council of Associations, a non-profit entity similar to a homeowners association,
jointly owns and controls the use of the property with the Northeast New Hanover Conservancy,
but the use of the property is restricted to what the Conservancy allows. In May, a newspaper
article about the Conservancy told of a planned educational nature trail that will be built in
Landfall. The Conservancy plans to blaze a nature trail through the Pocosin, that remains in its
wild condition despite the manicured lawns, shopping centers, and golf greens that surround the
area. The nature trail will be available, not only to the people in Landfall, but to school classes
and other community groups who sign up for a visit.
Mr. Keeter also asked for some consideration of tax relief for the wetlands areas. In his
opinion, the tax office should revalue the land as allowed by the North Carolina Conservation and
Historic Preservation Agreements Act, which is found in Section 121 of the statutes. The statute
states that "land and improvements subject to a conservation or preservation agreement shall be
assessed on the basis of the true value of this land and improvement less any reduction in value
caused by the agreement." Mr. John Hooten appraised the property using the impact of the
agreement on the value of the land. Under the preservation agreement act, tax assessors are
mandated to revalue land, even in non-revaluation years, when the land is subject to conservation
easements. The statute also states that "the true value of the property is market value, the price
estimated at which the property would change hands between a willing and financially able buyer
and willing seller, neither being under any compulsion to buy or sell and both having reasonable
knowledge of all the issues in which the property is adapted and which it is capable of being used. "
He stated that there should be no tax value for wetlands in a conservation easement. The assessed
value for the conservation easement tract is $4,358,329. The appraisal by Mr. Hooten is
$104,475.
1708
~
MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION AND REVIEW
JUNE 18, 2001
Page 300
Commissioner Caster asked if Landfall's homeowners have agreed to establishing a nature
trail in Landfall and allowing groups to visit the nature trail.
Mr. Keeter responded that the property was deeded to the Council subject to the
conservation easement deed. The Conservancy is setting up a mechanism that will allow groups
and classes to enter Landfall for visits to the nature trail. Prior approval must be received before
visits.
Mr. John Hooten said he is a real estate appraiser in New Hanover County and has been
involved with real estate and land use planning for 25 years. He is generally certified to appraise
all types of property in the state and he is a member of the Appraisal Institute. In appraising the
conservation areas for market value, he used criteria as defined by federal regulations and the
Appraisal Institute. He explained that the most important determination an appraiser uses in
appraising property is to determine the highest and best use of the property. Highest and best use
is governed by four criteria: legal permissibility, physical possibility, financial feasibility, and the
financially feasible use of generating the highest income. The most important criteria is the legal
permissibility. The recorded conservation easements of parcels C through J are not developable.
The only use for the land is compensatory wetlands or land that a developer can use as a
conservation easement. Based on comparable sales of compensatory wetlands from $200 to $700
an acre, he appraised the parcels as follows: Parcel C is $7,000; D is $2,000; E is $1,000, F is
$8,000, Gis $5,000, His $70,000, I is $11,000, and J is $475.
Mr. Joe Taylor said he is the attorney representing Landfall Associates and he supervised
the development of the Landfall Subdivision. He said the conservation easement areas were not
intended for any type of development and were classical "upland wetlands." There may be a
pocket or two of high land in the acreage, but surrounding that acreage is wetlands. No
infrastructure can be run to it, and no roads or sewer lines are permitted. He explained that the
Corps of Engineers in the early 1990s regulated that ditched areas could not be filled in on
properties of this type. In his opinion, the property has never had any development value and may
have a negative value to the Council. The Corps required that the property remain in its pristine
state as part of the lawsuit settlement. Although the Council owns the fee simple title, they have
no control over the use of the property.
Mr. Taylor explained that areas marked as future developments on old subdivision map
plans of Landfall were areas for which there were no specific plans. Development would come
to a halt if an area marked as a common area was needed for a realignment for a stormwater drain.
Once the infrastructures are fixed in the final stages of the development, the developer removes the
nomenclature of future development from the map and converts it to common area. Land that was
never planned to be developed as a conservation easement, may be called future development on
a map plan. This particular land was never intended to be developed nor could it be developed.
Another aspect of the appeal pertained to the maintenance facilities. The developer
~~os
I
I
I
-..,
MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION AND REVIEW
JUNE 18, 2001
Page 301
purchased property for the maintenance of the buildings and land, which includes 25 miles of
roads, 50 miles of stormwater retention systems, grates and outfall areas, and countless landscaped
areas that require a large amount of maintenance. Heavy equipment is housed in the buildings.
As development is completed, the buildings are converted to common areas and deeded to the
Council. In his opinion, those lands should have no value to the Council and should not be
included in the tax assessment to the Council because individual land owners had already paid for
the facilities in the purchase price of their lots. If the County establishes another value for all
common areas to be deeded to the Council, property owners in Landfall will be paying double
taxes.
In the assessment support, Tax Appraisal Supervisor Bolick responded that the County had
been taxing that property since 1999. Landfall Associates deeded the property to the homeowners
association, but the County was unaware that the property was intended for common area. The
County was notified that the property was given to the Council. The Tax Department found the
conservation easement for the property when they were determining the value of the property.
Generally, value is reduced by 50 % on property that is non-buildable, and the reduction was
applied to the conservation easements.
In regards to the maintenance building, the General Statutes allow exemptions to properties
belonging to a homeowners association unless the assessor has predicated the value. The County
had not predicated the value of the maintenance building because it was assessed to Landfall
Associates in 1999 and years prior. When the property changed hands, the Tax Office took the
value and divided it among the 1,834 lots within Landfall.
Chairman Davis asked for clarification concerning Mr. Taylor's argument that the common
areas were added to the purchase price of the lot. He asked if the value of this common area was
factored into the fair market value of the lots.
Tax Appraisal Supervisor Bolick replied that the value of the lots established on January 1,
1999, did not capture the value of these common areas. The value was assessed to Landfall
Associates for the individual tracts. When the land was transferred to Landfall Council, the Tax
Office predicated the total value to each of the parcels on a pro rata basis.
Chairman Davis asked if the properties were assessed as wetlands and undevelopable.
Tax Appraisal Supervisor Bolick responded that he was unaware the properties were
designated as 404 Wetlands. Mr. Hooten's appraisal stated that the soil types were indicative of
wetlands, but the maps of the Soil and Conservation office show the soils in the conservation
easements the same types as the developed areas.
Tax Administrator Glasgow further explained that in the early 1990s when Landfall was
being developed, values were captured based upon the selling price for 1991 revaluation. The ..
90t:
~
MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION AND REVIEW
JUNE 18, 2001
Page 302
values for the future development areas were established and revalued in the 1999 Revaluation, but
some of the property should have been identified as common areas so that it could have been
absorbed. Because the tracts have an established value, the tax office reduced the existing value
by 50% for those identified as conservation areas.
Vice Chairman Greer asked what tax benefit is there for giving property to a conservation
group if the owner continues to pay property taxes.
Tax Administrator Glasgow responded that the assessed value is reduced while the property
has value as greenspace for educational purposes and it can be used by the owner.
In regards to the maintenance buildings, Mr. Keeter concluded that the facilities were not
factored in the values of the property in 1999 because the values were already included as part of
the common areas. He contended that it would be double taxation for the homeowners association.
Furthermore, the land jointly owned by the non-profit corporations for educational, charitable, and
scientific purposes should not be included on the tax rolls as allowed under NCGS 105-275.
Tax Administrator Glasgow responded that the value of the swamp forest conservation land
was reduced because it was recognized as wetlands, but some of the property was not designated
as 404 Wetlands and the value had not been disputed in the past.
Commissioner Caster stated there are times when a conservation easement is designated as
land used for farming. He asked if a tax reduction was given for property even when used.
Tax Administrator Glasgow responded that there is reduction in value of 50% for
conservation areas and those lands can be used for trails for horseback riding, etc. For example,
an individual who owns stables and rents horses for profit, the property/trails that are being used
have a reduced tax value due to the conservation easement.
Mr. Taylor responded that the conservation easement agreement for the Landfall property
was very stringent. In normal situations, an owner can continue to use the property, but the
Landfall Council has no control over the property and yet they have a tax burden from the $4
million property. A swamp forest designated as wetland property has more value to a developer
than the conservation easement. Potentially, 404 wetlands can be used for drainage, but the terms
of the easement do not allow any benefit to the developer.
Tax Administrator Glasgow asked if the property could be deeded to the Conservancy
instead of the Landfall Council. The conservation easement would not have any assessed value if
the property was deeded to the Conservancy.
Mr. Taylor responded that the Corps of Engineers had the courts to approve the order and
it cannot be redone.
gOS
I
I
I
~
MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION AND REVIEW
JUNE 18, 2001
Page 303
Mr. Keeter responded that Northeast New Hanover Conservancy does not want the liability
of a fee simple ownership.
Commissioner Caster commented that although he understood the appellant's opinion of
value, he felt there was some intrinsic value for the conservation easement because the people in
Landfall can continue to enjoy the views of the natural areas. However, he did agree that the
property may not have as much value as the Tax Department had assessed the property.
At the conclusion of the hearings on this date, Tax Administrator Glasgow reported that he
had talked with the Tax Administrator of Dare County and learned that Dare County does not
reduce the value of common areas, but it redistributes the value to the property owners. New
Hanover County reduces the value based on the market value. Dare County also places an
adjustment factor on property when they reduce the value of large tracts of land identified as
conservation.
Vice Chairman Greer stated that the purpose of a conservation easement was to set land
aside for open space, which the Board encourages. However, it should not include giving up rights
to the property unless appropriately compensated.
Assistant Appraisal Supervisor Clemmons responded that the Landfall Council will continue
to have the authority over who can visit the property. Approval must be received in advance of
visiting the site.
Motion: Vice Chairman Greer MOVED to reduce the assessed value of the properties by 50%.
Tax Administrator Glasgow pointed out that the future development acreage will need to
be identified and added to Landfall Associates tax listings. He would need a break down of the
general properties that included undeveloped areas. The value would be higher than those that
were developed in the first part of Landfall. Properties that are changed to common areas will
need to be applied to the 1,834 property owners. If Landfall Associates had notified the County
before the categories were developed, the Tax Department could have handled it easily.
Tax Appraisal Supervisor Bolick noted that the 1996 map of the area did not indicate
wetland areas or that some of the land was traded off in a settlement with the Corps.
Tax Administrator Glasgow reported that staff worked with Mr. Stallings of Landfall
Associates to determine how to bill the properties. The properties could be assessed either to the
Council or to the 1,834 individual property owners. If the billing is changed from the Council to
the property owners, a value change notice will need to be sent to the 1,834 property owners.
Also, the County was not told which properties were not going to be developed in Phase II and
those properties were kept at full value of $3,881 instead of $2,620 for Phase I properties. The
two different categories are based on the Council's identification of the number of lots to be
808 ~
MINUTES OF THE; BOARD OF EQUALIZATION AND REVIEW
JUNE 18, 2001
Page 304
included in the common area.
Vice Chairman Greer stated that it would not be fair to the property owners to change . the
billing. He felt the purpose of the conservation easement was to encourage land owners to preserve
natural areas thereby reducing taxes for the property.
Tax Administrator Glasgow replied that some of the properties are not in the conservation
areas and they do have value. This matter could have been cleared up if Landfall Associates had
told the County about the requirements of the Corps of Engineers.
Chairman Davis asked if any of the land was designated as wetlands.
Tax Appraisal Supervisor Bolick responded that the Tax Office will need to verify the 1996
map in the Planning Department that shows the wetland areas. The Tax Office was unaware that
the agreement to build the nine-hole golf course required setting aside 152 acres of wetlands.
Chairman Davis asked for clarification that before the title of the property had changed
hands, Landfall Associates had paid the taxes on the property. Now the Landfall Council is saying
that the properties are assessed incorrectly and they want to change the classifications. In law there
is an estoppel rule, which means that when something is done and accepted, it cannot be stopped
and changed later. Although the ownership has changed hands, the issue should have been raised
at the beginning. I
Tax Administrator Glasgow agreed with Chairman Davis' conclusions.
Motion: Vice Chairman Greer MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Caster, to reduce the
value of the property from $5,299,960 to $2,649,980, which is half of the assessed value.
Tax Administrator Glasgow reminded the Board that some of the properties in the appeal
owned by Landfall still have full value.
Substitute Motion: In consideration of the conservation areas that could not be used by the
Council, Vice Chairman Greer MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Caster, to reduce the
value of the Conservation Easement Tracts C through J by 50%. Upon vote, the MOTION
CARRIED 2 TO 1.
Voting Aye: Commissioner Caster
Vice Chairman Greer
Voting Nay: Chairman Davis
I O' -..
L t;
I
I
I
~
MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION AND REVIEW
JUNE 18, 2001
Page 305
In discussion of the remaining properties, Tax Administrator Glasgow explained that when
the 1999 reevaluation was completed, the County was 102 % of market value for Landfall. The
former Tax Appraisal Supervisor performed a complete review of properties and when the
corrections were applied, the values were 98.06 % of market value. The maintenance building had
a separate value for Landfall Associates and it was not included as part of the homeowners' value.
The Tax Office can redistribute value of the common areas to individual homeowners since the
ownership was transferred from Landfall Associates to the Landfall Council. Had the market value
for this area been at 100 % or higher, it would be inappropriate to distribute additional value to the
owners for areas such as the maintenance area.
MOTION: Chairman Davis MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Caster, to uphold the
assessed value of the remaining properties as recommended by the Tax Appraisal Supervisor.
Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED 3 TO O.
Voting Aye: Commissioner Caster
Vice Chairman Greer
Chairman Davis
Commissioner Pritchett had left the meeting before the Board voted on the appeal and
Commissioner Boseman arrived just before the vote. Neither voted on the appeal.
TAX APPEAL - RONALD M. AND ANN C. LAREAU, 1704 BELLEVUE COURT,
WILMINGTON, NC, TAX MAP NUMBER R05710-006-028-000
Tax Administrator Robert Glasgow reported that the property, a 1 1/2 story brick home, was
built in the Villas at Landfall in 1995. It has approximately 3,294 square feet of heated living area.
The assessed value is $405,688.
Mr. Ronald LaReau, the property owner, spoke concerning the County's tax record card
of his home showing 3,400 square feet instead of 2,800 square feet as he was told when he
purchased the home. In comparing his property with lot 28, both had the same builder and the
same size house and construction, but the neighboring property is valued $14,000 less than his
property. Properties on lots 030 and 029 are both significantly below his assessed value by
$55,000. However, his house is newer than the others. He spoke of the events of the last 4 112
years regarding the construction of a hobby shop on the Dobo property behind his house at 216
Beach Street. Although the County had denied the building permit in 1996 and 1997, the City of
Wilmington gave Mr. Dobo approval to construct the hobby shop in 2000. Although an ordinance
requires an accessory building to be subordinate to the principle dwelling, the City allowed the
construction of a 5,600 square foot building. The principle dwelling has 3,700 square feet. The
assessed value of the 5,600 square foot building is $149,000 and the assessed value of the 3.2 acre
lot is $150,000, which he felt were quite low in value. He argued that the large 22 foot high
building was an eye sore and detriment to the value of his property, which was established before
the 5,600 square foot building was constructed.
018
~
MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION AND REVIEW
JUNE 18, 2001
Page 306
Mr. LaReau showed pictures of his property before and after the construction of the hobby
shop and residence and views showing the Mercury vapor lighting on his property. He complained
that the lighting from the vapor lights were very strong and excessive, and he has requested the
City of Wilmington to evaluate the effects of the lights.
Tax Appraisal Supervisor Bolick stated that the Tax Department was unaware of the
discrepancy in the square footage of Mr. LaReau house, but he would review the tax record card
for accuracy.
Tax Administrator Glasgow asked Mr. LaReau about the status of his lawsuit concerning
the Dobo property.
Mr. LaReau responded that the lawsuit concerns the hobby shop and the housing of heavy
equipment and a sawmill on the property. He contended that the operation of the sawmill in the
residential community will deter anyone from purchasing his home and he has asked the courts to
stop the industrial use. The city attorney recently asked the courts for a continuation.
Tax Administrator Glasgow explained that the value of property in Landfall was somewhat
higher than properties on Beach Street, although properties on Summer Rest Road were extremely
valuable.
In the assessment support, Tax Appraisal Supervisor Bolick compared the sales of properties
for 1707 Pope Court, 1709 Pope Court, and 1605 Dye Place to Mr. LaReau's property, and he
found the values to be consistent.
At the conclusion of the hearings on this date, Tax Appraisal Supervisor Bolick noted that
the fence between the properties provides some privacy and he was able to see the hobby shop from
Mr. LaReau's property when he visited the site. The lighting used by Mr. Dobo is the same as
used by CP&L in other neighborhoods. The hobby shop is not valued the same as a residence
because it does not have moldings and other extras found in homes.
Assistant Attorney Moore advised the Board that they may want to make its motion based
on the square footage of Mr. LaReau's residence, instead of any reference to the use of the adjacent
property, since the case is in judicial review.
Motion: Chairman Davis MOYED, SECONDED by Commissioner Caster, to have staff confirm
the square footage of the house and to reduce the value if appropriate; however, if there is no
change in the measurement of the house, he MOYED to uphold the assessed value of $405,688.
Upo~ vote, the MOTION CARRIED 4 TO O.
bll8
I
I
I
~
MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION AND REVIEW
JUNE 18, 2001
ASSESSED VALUES UPHELD
Tax Administrator Glasgow reported that some of the appellants were not present to give
their appeals. He asked the Board to affirm the assessed value for the remaining appeals.
Page 307
Motion: Chairman Davis MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Caster, to uphold the
assessed values for the remaining appeals. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED 4 TO O.
Sandra F. Cherry, 314 Forest Hills Drive, Wilmington, NC, Tax Map Number R05408-
010-015-000, assessed value $378,100
Steve W. Ross, 5301 Holt Road, Wilmington, NC, Tax Map Number R077oo-oo1-011-
000, assessed value $218,226
Florence A. Schorschinsky, 905 Long Cove Court, Wilmington, NC, Tax Map Number
R05112-006-019-000, assessed value $305,062
Leah Rose Williams, 1107 Congressional Lane, Wilmington, NC, Tax Map Number
R02919-003-039-000, assessed value $264,861
ASSESSED VALUES REDUCED
Tax Administrator Robert Glasgow reported that several appellants withdrew their appeals
after the Tax Department corrected errors that were found. He recommended that the Board
approve the revised assessments and to uphold the values of the remaining withdrawn appeals.
Motion: Chairman Davis MOVED, SECONDED by Vice Chairman Greer, to accept the revised
assessments for appellants who withdrew their appeals upon correction of errors and to uphold the
remaining appeals that were withdrawn, as recommended by the Tax Appraisal Supervisor. Upon
vote, the MOTION CARRIED 4 TO O.
Bailey & Associates
Bill Clark Homes
Bland, Donald S.
Carmike Cinemas, Inc.
R05714-002-004-000
R04400-003-094-000
R05405-002-0 13-000
R08814-003-0 11-00A and
R06205-005-0 10-000
R04513-0 13-00 1-000
R070 1 0-00 1-00 1-000
R04817-032-002-000
R051 00-002-0 14-00 I
R04913-0 18-020-000
R05505-004-001-000
R03 815-00 1-0 13-000
R05105-001-017-000
Chapman, Frank L. Paula Harrison
Clark & Sons, LLC
Cooperative Bank for Savings
Country Club of Landfall
F&W Enterprises
DRP Wilmington, LLC
Gorham, Frank D. III Ramsey L.
Hall, W. Gregory Sarah F.
G ~~8 ~
MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION AND REVIEW
JUNE 18, 2001
Hanover Clocks, Inc.
Hodges, Glenn W.
Koch Measurement Devices, Inc.
Lumina Station
Mariner Health, LLC
Modem Laundry & Dry Cleaners
Old Baymeade Development Co.
Oleander Company
Page, Morris Norman
Secretary of HUD
Self Help Ventures Fund
Walls, Richard Todd Eta!.
Ward, Gregory F. Michelle L.
Yopp, Esther Naomi
The following taxpayers withdrew their appeals:
Barwick, Hugh B. Jr.
Belcher, Jerry Edwin
McCall, Darrell
Todd Properties, LLC
Vosnock, Steve M.
l~S
ROI500-002-001-005 and
ROI500-002-002-000
R05407 -038-009-000
R05414-006-003-000
Various Parcels
R060 18-004-00 1-000
R035 15-002-004-000
R048 19-029-003-000
R04400-004-0 19-000 thru
R04400-004-022-000;
R04400-004-025 -000;
R04400-004-028-000 thru
R04400-004-038-000
R055 17-001-001-000
R0881O-004-097-000 and
R08 810-004-047 -000
R060 13-0 17 -001-000;
R06013-021-031-000;
R060 13-0 16-002-000;
R06017-005-001-000;
R060 17 -004-008-000;
R060 17 -007 -001-000
R04 720-006-001-000
R04915-0 10-007 -000
R03508-004-038-000
R063 19-004-008-000 and
R063 19-004-009-000
R03716-002-003-000
R03500-007-029-000
R06308-015-014-000
R06015-003-005-001
RO 1 000-00 1-008-00 1
Page 308
I
I
I
~
MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION AND REVIEW
JUNE 18, 2001
Page 309
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Chairman Davis adjourned the Board of Equalization and
~~. ~
The meeting adjourned at 3:50 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jt U~~ f1f~~
Teresa P. Elmore
Deputy Clerk to the Board
1718 ~