1962-04-09 Board of E&R? 9;?
. , Fui? W. G. Houck, Executive Secretary
New Hanover County Board of Commissioners
BOARD OF EQUALIZATION AND REVIEW MEETINGS
NEW HANOVER COUNTY
The Board of Eqvalization and Review,,as required under the Law,held its first
? meeting on March 19 1962 at 11:30 A. N;., in the Office of the County Commissioners.
Present were James M. Hall, Jr.; Chairman, Peter H. Braak, John Van B. Metts, Jr.
I Leon E. Broadhurst, Ernest R. Mayhan and T. D. Love acting as Secretary.
I
? The meeting was called to order by Chairman Hall and after discussion the Secretary
' was instructed to review all protests and to asranoe hearings for the protestants be-
ginnino on April 2, 1962 at 11:30 A. M.
There being no further business, the meeting was recessed until April 2, 1962,
Minutes of the Special Joint Meetiny April
ACTION -
1962 Continued
After a brief discussion, Commissioner John Van B. Metts, Jr. offered a motion
that Mr. Oliver C. Carter be employed to file a petition in defense of the City and
County and follour through with whatever is necessary to secure a reconsideration of the
order a1lowing a 90 day suspension of service and file an application for a hearino
and that his fees be borne equally between the City and County. It was seconded by
Councilman E. S. Capps, Jr. and unanimously adopted.
ADJOURNMENT -
There being no further business before the joint Board, the Mayor declared
the meeting adjourned.
The recessed meeting of the Board of Equalization and Review was resumed April !
2, 1962 with the foilowing present: J. M. Hall, Jr., Chairman, Peter H. Braak, John
Van B. Metts, Jr. Leon E. Broadhurst, Ernest R. Mayhan with T. D. Love action as
Secretary.
Complying with instructions, the Secretary had arranged for protests to be on I
hand and the following protests were heard:
1. New Hanover Housing Corporation, represented by Mr. Frederick Willetts.
2. Cooperative Savings &.Loan Association, represented bv Nir. Frederick l^Jil2etts.
3. L. Schwartz, regarding property in Block 278.
4. Wilmington Coca-Cola Bottling Works, Incorporated, represented by Nr. Jack Crossley,
Attorney.
s. William L. Nisbet, regarding property located in Block 177.
6. Southeastern Building Corporation, represented by Mr. Edwin P. Friedberg, Attorney
from Raleigh, N. C.
7. irs. Nell H. Trask, represented by Attorney David H. Scott.
8. Gilbert H. Burnett, in regard to property located in Forest Hills- Failed to appear.
9? Kina Stradford, regardino property in Block 65. - Failed to appear.
1
10. ldilliam Rosemann in regard to property in Block 191.
The above complaints were heard and were informed of the Board's decision as rendered,
at a later date. There being no further business, the meeting was recessed until April 9th, 1962.
The recessed meeting of the Board of Equalization and Review was resumed April 9,
1962, and was ca'lled to order at 9:00 A. M. Chairman James M. Hall, Jr, was present
along with Peter H. Braak, John Van Metts, Ernest R. Vjayhan and T. D. Love acting
as Secretary, and Assessors Mr. Raymond E. Blake, Jr., and Mr. Harry S. McGirt were
also present.
At this time various complaints were heard in regard to their protests and were informed
that a decision would be rendered later in regard to same.
continued -
??
a1 r,t
Minutes of the Board of Equalization and Review - Continued April 9o 1962
? The Board then proceeded to go out into tfie field and inspect property on whYch
I complaints were made and decisions as outlined below were made.
1. New Hanover Housing Corporation's complaint was in regard to assessment on apartments
on Oleander Drive. This property was reviewed and the assessments were allowed to
remain as is as it was found to be in line with similar property in the County.
q 2. Complaint on Cooperative Savings and Loan Association was reviewed and the assessment
was left to stand as is.
? 3• Complaint of L. Schwart2 in Block 278 was reviewed and the assessment was allowed to
stand as it was found to be in line with similar property in the County.
4. "Wilmington Coca-Cola Bottling Works, Incorporated complaint was heard and as the pro-
perty had been considerably dismantled and according to Section 301, Paragraph "C"
of the Machinery Act the assessment was reduced from $24,100 to $15,175.
5. Compiaint of William L. Nisbet on property in Block 177 was heard and the assessment
was allowed to stand as it was found to be in line with similar property in the County.
? 6. Complaint of SoutheasternBuilding Corporation Uras revieUred and the assessment was
?i allowed to stand as it was found to be in line with similar property in the County.
7. Complaint of Mrs. Nell H. Trask was reviewed on property in Oleander, and the assess-
ment was allowed to stand as it was found to be in line with similar property in the County.
! 8. Complaint of Gilbert H. Burnett on property in Forest Hills was reviewed and the assess-
ment was allowed to stand as it was found to be in line tiaith similar property in the
County.
I 9. Complaint of Kina Stradford on property in Block 65 was reviewed and the assessment
was allowed to stand as it was found to be in line tifith similar property in the County.
'i 10. Complaint on Hrs. M. Rosemann property in Block 191 was reviewed and the assessment
was allowed to stand as it was found to be in line with similar property in the County.
I 11. Complaint on Harry Berman's property located in Masonboro Township was reviewed and
the assessment was allowed to stand as it was found to be in line iaith similar property
in the County.
12. Complaint of Earl A. Baker was reviewed and the assesment was changed from $5,275 to
?$4,750 as it was found1that the description of the property was in error when assessed at
the last revaluation.
13. Complaint of A. C. Gideon at Seagate was reviewed and the assessment was cut from
$11,425 to $10,725 due to the fact that proper depreciation had not been allowed,
as allowed on similar property in the County, at the time of revaluation.
14. Property of Hrs. of R. B. Freeman located in Federal Point was reviewed and the assess-
ment was reduced from $9,450 to $4,950. This beiny due to the fact that the property
had been substantial-ly.damaged by storms and could be reduced under Section 301, para-
graph "C", Machinery Act.
15• Complaint of Ethel M. Carter on property at bJilmington Beach was reviewed and the
assessment was allowed to stand as it was found to be in line with 'sLmilar propert.y
in the County.
16. Complaint of James H. Emmons who has property in Slock 18 Lot 10 Carolina Beach was
revieated and the assessment was allowed to stand as it was found to be in line with
similar property in the County.
` 17. Complaint of Foster Burnett, Jr.,, etal., on property in Block 224 was reviewed and the
u assessment was redueed from $10,200 to $8,950 due to the fact that at the time of re-
valuation -'depreciation on the property was not allowed in accordance to similar pro-
perty in the County. The depreciation schedule t-tas changed from 25% to 35%.
'118. Complaint of L. C. French on property in Block 178 was reviewed and the assessment was
I allowed to stand as it was found to be in line with similar property in the County.
19• Complaint of R. J. Bot,.nnan on property in Block 197 was reviewed and it was aliowed to
be in line with similar property in the County.
20. Complaint of Benjamin L..D'Lugin on property in Block 151 was reviewed and it was allow-
_ed to stand as it tdas found to be in line with similar property in the County.
21. Complaint of Nrs. Thelma N. Everett on property in Block 196 was reviewed and it was
allowed to stand as it was found to be in line raith similar property in the County.
22. Complaint of Howard A. Hanby on property in Block 1L77 4735 reviewed and it i,ras allow-
ed to stand as it i•aas found to be in line with similar property in the County.
?I23. Complaint of Hattie S. Lewi s on property in Block 309 was reviewed and it was allowed
to stand as it was found to be in line with similar property in the County.
24. Complaint of .lohn McCartney on property in Block 117 was reviewed and it uaas allowed
to stand as it was found to be in line wiLh similar property in Lhe County.
25. Compia.int of Niriam and Sol Mann on property in Block 74 was reviewed and it was
allowed to s tand as it mras found to be in line with similar property in the County.
26. Complaint of Hrs. Daisy B. Merritt ( Nirs. Mary Merritt rarmer) on property in Block
183 was revi ewed and it was allowed to the County.
27. Complaint of Ivlrs. Lela C. Register on property in Block 87 was revieiaed and it was
continued-
i
6
I
,. IJ
I 94
Mimites of the Meetino-Soard of Eaualization and Review April 9. 1962
(continued)
allowed to stand as it t•!as found to be in line with similar property in the County.
28, Complaint of Mrs. Annie F. Toomer on property located in Carolina Heights was re-
viewed and it was allowed to stand as it was found to be in line with similar pro-
perty in the County.
29. Complaint of J. J. Vereen on property in Sunset Park was reviewed and it was allowed
to stand as it was found to be in line with similar property in the County.
30. Complaint on Hrs. of Mrs. Lita L. UJhitehead on praperty 130 was reviewed and it was ?i
allowed to stand as it was found to be in line i-iith similar property in the County. '
? I
31. Complaint of Mrs. Lillie Mae Wiggins on property in Block 17 was reviewed and iti ?
? was reviewed and it was allowed to stand as it was found to be in line with similar
? property in the County.
32. Complaint of Leon Stein on property in Block 91 was reviewed and'it was allowed to
stand as it was found to be in line with similar property in the County.
33• Complaint of James M. Fitzgerald on property in Lincoln Forest was reviewed and it
I alloUted to stand as it was found to be in line with similar property in the County.
34• Complaint of Mrs. Bertha N. Waldron on property in Block 189 was reviewed and it was
allowed to stand as it was found to be in line with similar property in the County.
35• Complaint of Henry B. Harbers on property in Block 210 was reviewed and the assess-
ment was reduced from $6,300 to $6,200 due to the fact that the garage which had
been formerly assessed had been removed from the property.
36. Complaint of Hrs. of Rosa Harbers 4Jessell on property in Biock 338 was reviewed and
I it was allowed to stand as it was found to be in line with similar property in the
? in the County.
37• Complaint of 1:!achovia Bank 8 Trust Company acting as Trustee for Hrs. R. R. Stone's
property in Block 74 was heard and the assessment was allov!ed to stand as it was
found to be in line with similar property in the County.
I 38. Complain of Wachovia Bank & Trust Company acting as Trustee for Hrs. R. R. Stone's
I property in Block 105 was reviewed and the assessment was allowed to stand as it was
found to be in line with similar property in the County.
39. Complaint of Wachovia Bank & Trust Company acting as Trustee for Hrs. R. R. Stone's
property in Block 144 was reviewed and the assessment was ailowed to stand as it was
found to be in line with similar property in the County.
40. Complaint of Wachovia Bank & Trust Company acting as Trustee for Hrs. R. R. Stone's
property in Block 149 was reviewed and the assessment was allowed to stand as it
was found to be in line with similar property in the County.
? 41. Complaint of Wachovia Bank & Trust Company acting as Trustee for Hrs. R. R. Stone's
? property in Block 250 was reviewed and the assessment was allowed to stand as it was
found to be in line with similar property in the County.
42. Complaint of Wachovia Bank & Trust Company acting as Trustee for Hrs. Andrew J.
Flannerts property in Block 178 was reviewed and the assessment was allowed to
stand as it was found to be in line with similar property in the County.
43• Complaint of Wachovia Bank 8 Trust Company acting as Trustee for Hrs. Mrs. Fannie ?
Hahn's property in Block 178 was reviewed and the assessment was ailowed to stand as I
it was found to be in line with similar property in the County.
1E4. Compiaint of Wachovia Bank & Trust Company acting as Trustee for Hrs. Mrs. Fannie
Hahn's property in Block 178 was reviewed and the assessment was allowed to stand
as it was found to be in line with similar property in the County (second piece).
45• Complaint of Davi'.d B.:Jacobi and French Lewis on property in Block 72 was reviewed
and the assessment was allowed to stand as it was found to be in line with similar
property in the County.
' 46. Complaint of J. R. Hobbs on property in Slock 511 was reviewed and the assessment
was allowed to stand as it was found to be in line with similar property in the
County.
47. Complaint of Jessie Retider on property in Block (}72 was revi'ewed and tEne assessment
was allowed to stand as it was found to be in line with similar property in the
County. i
48. Complaint of David J. Padrick on property in Block 501-A was reviewed and the assess-I
ment was allowed to stand as it was found to be in line with similar property in the I
County.
The Board having handled all the complaints that came before it and 4'inished their work
at 3:00 P. P4., April 9, 1962. j
The minutes of the Meetings of the Board were to be reviewed at the next meeting of
the Board and any changes necessary would be made.
The work for the year 1962 of the Board of Equalization and Review was completed.
i
/S/ T. D. Love
Secretary