1973-04-3 04-16 Board of E&R. ~9~
MINUTES OF MEETING, MAY 2~, ~973 - 9~0o n.M. (C~NTINtTED)
REPORT FROM THE COLLECTOR OF REVENUE (CONTINUED)
Chairman Uaughan asked that she type in beside the outstanding charges a description
o£ that figure such as "no outstanding ~967-197~•"
Commissioner Powell requested that she give the total outstanding to date at the same
time last year to use for comparative purposes on both the current ~ear's taxes and back
taxes.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: BOARD OF EQUALIZATION AND REVIEW
Commissioner Hall moved, seconded by Commissioner Powell, that the £ollowing minutes
of the Board of Equalization and Review dated the 3rd, 'IOth, 'I'Ith, and '16th of April, ~9~3,
be approved. Motion carried unanimously.
"~973
NEW HANOVER COUNTY
BOARD OF EQUALIZATION & REVIEFI
The '19'73 Board of Equalization and Review met April 3, ~9~3 in the
Board of County Commissioners' Room, located at '14 Ptorth Third St., Wilmington,
North Carolina.
At 9:00, Mr. James McKeithan, Clerk of Superior Court, administered
the Oath of Office to the Board members. Mrs. Vivian S. Wright, Mr. J. N.
Hall, Mr. Peter Davis; Mr. Mike Vaughan and Mr. Douglas Powell were all
sworn in at this time. Copy of Oath attached.
Mr. Peter Davis was excused from this hearing in order to attend another
meeting scheduled at this time.
Mr. Larry J. Powell, Tax Administrator, at this time, introduced the
Board members to Mr. Emmet Shugart of the State Board of Assessment and
Mr. Raymond Blake, Appraisal Supervisor with the Tax Office.
Mr. I,arry Powell stated that extra time had been allowed this morning
to organize the Board in preparing for these hearings. Nr. Powell stated
that a copy of G.S. '105-322 had been forwarded to each of the Board members
explaining the duties of the Board. Mr. Povrell stated that his office had
scheduled each of the taxpayers at '15 minutes intervals requesting that they
notify our of£ice if there were to appear, they are so noted on the schedule,
iP the taxpayers will be here or if they requested that we present the case.
All of these people have been notified of the time.
Mr. Vaughan asked Mr. Larry Powell to briefly go over the law of G.S.
~05-322 in which the Commissioners would need to be refreshed on. Mr.
Larry Powell stated that it was the duties of the Board or review the
valuationtn see that they are in line throughout the entire County and
to set the values for the up comin~ year of ~973.
Mr. Vaughan questioned Mr. Powell whether there was anything else
that should be brought up at this time. Mr. Powell mentioned that in previous
years, that a special chairman had been elected to preside over the Board of
Equalization and Review. Mr, t4ike Hall made the motion to elect Mr. Vaughan
as Special Chairman of the Board, this was seconded by Mr. Douglas Powell,
all in favor voted aye, unanimously passed.
Mr. Larry Powell stated that all property presented to this Board has
been'reviewed by the Tax Office and that the property had been compared to
similar properties.
Mrs. Edna Fussell's property complaint was presented by Mr. Larry
Powell. Mrs. Fussell owns property at 'I'10 North 'i3th Street. Her primary
complaint is that area is no longer as valuable as it used to be. Mr. Hall
requested at this time, that when Mr. Powell was advising the cases that he
give the address of the property as the block number was of no assistance.
Mr. Powell stated that this office had reviewed the property and that it
did need painting; however, there was no physical change in the structure
of the house, his opinion was that the area had decreased in value; however,
under this review at this time, he saw no recommended reduction in value.
This property complaint has appeared before the Board for the third time
this year, no changes had been made in two prior years.
Mr. Vaughan asked if there is any legal basis for changin~ between
assessments of property, in an area, for instance that £luctuates in value.
Mr. Zarry Powell replied that it could be done in a horizontal year. In
the fourth year by a percentage it can be handled on a horizontal basis.
Mr. Hall brought up that the whole community would have to be done, that
you could not handled on an individual basis. Mr. Vaughan asked if it were
in order to ask~sfor a motion on this case. Mr. Larry Powell stated that a
motion should be made on each piece of property. Motion to accept Mr.
Larry Powell's recommendation of no change was made by Mr. Douglas Powell,
Mr. Vaughan seconded. Mrs. Wright asked if this property had been compared
with similar property. Mr. Powell replied that this had been done, but
copies of the comparables had not been brought along. Mr. Vaughan asked if
all were in favor of no change. Motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Larry Powell presented Mr. Thomas Gregg's complaint. The property
in question is located at 'I'IO Market Street, the Old Western Auto Store. Mr.
Gregg's complaint is that the property in the downtown sections is ~.ust not
as valuable as it was in '196'] when all the property was appraised. Mr. Powell
stated that his office had reviewed several pieces of property downtown, and this
particular building was in line with the pricing manuel established in '1967.
~~~~
MINUTES OF MEETING, MAY 2'I, ~973 - 9:0o A.M. (CONTINUED)
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: BOARD OF E9UALIZATION AND REVIE47((CONTINUED)
Minutes (Continued)
The land is also in line. Mr. Hall moved that no change be made in
accordance with the recommendation of the Tax Administrator. Mr.
Douglas Powell seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Powell presented the Adam
at 4 Market Street. This building
has deteriorated, but the building
The land is valued at $2,200. Mr.
change in this propert3i seconded
unanimously.
Latta Home Fund, which is located.
has been vacant for sometime and
is now only valued at $4,080.
Vaughan moved that there be no
~y Mr. Douglas Powell. Notion carried
Mr. Allen Bridges' property was presented by Mr. Powell. Mr. Bridges'
complaint is in re£erence to acreage, he claims that he does not have the
acreage that we have him charged with. His deed gave approximately 28
acres when he ~iiraha'sed'it and he has since deeded off several tracts of
this. He £urther stated that he coult not deed marshland. Mr. Powell
stated that he had checked with the County Attorney, Mr. Fox. and Mr.
Fox said that this marshland can be deeded, that there is nothing in the
law to prevent him from doing so. Mr. Powell stated that Ghis recommenda-
tion is to change the value o£ the marshland since now that Mr. Bridges
has identified exactly how much he has, to $'I00 per acre, chargin~ him
with 9.0~ acres, giving him a total value o£ property of $'I'1,860. Mrs.
Wright reguested Mr. Powell to state~~the acreage again, which he did so.
She also mentioned that this was the same gentleman that she had had previous
correspondence with in January of this year, concerning the developer's
consideration. Mr. Powell clarified for Mr. Vaughan that o£ the '16.84
acre tract that p.0'7 acres of this is marshland. On the marshland the pro-
posed value is $'100 per acre, on the woodland of 2.69 acres $400 per acre.
The remaining o£ 5.~8 acres is priced at road fronta~e, he has 42~ feet
on the road, that is priced at an actual value of $24 a foot. Which is
priced out at $9,8'70, the woodland is $'1,080, the marshland is $9'10.
Mrs. Wright questioned the acreage and whether the land was really marshy,
she stated that he seemed to be holding it for sale. Mr. Powell stated
that Mr. Bridges claims that he would like to sell, but his attorney has
advised that he cannot deed it, and our Attorney had advised that it could
be sold. Mr. Hall moved that.the recommendation of the Tax Administrator
be accepted, Mr. Vaughan seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Powell presented Mr. Richard Wetherill's property, described as
4.5 acres 2 Mile Branch. Mr. Wetherill bought this property in '19'7'I and
was split-out from some other property in the area, the other property
had been priced at $300 per acre, when it was transferred to Mr. Wetherill
by the Appraisal Section, it appears that it was trans£erred at $3,000
per acre instead of $300 per acre. Nr. Powell stated that the land was
probably worth $300 an acre; however, the market value at that time was
set at $300, so in order to keep it in line with comparable property in
the area we will have to bring it back down to $300. Mr. Hall motioned
that Mr. Powell's recommendation be accepted, as this was a clerical
error and that the valuation be set at $'1,350 instead of the $'i3,500.
Mrs. Wright seconded the motion. Unanimousl~r carried.
Mr. Powell next presented Wilmington Merchants Downtown Parking
Company. This is an agreement between the City of Wilmington and the
downtown merchants. Mr. Powell stated that from reading the lease,
that the City agreed to remove some of the buildings and help erect a
parking lot, collect the fees from the parking meters at a percentage
of the income, keep the books for the Company.. The Company is contending
now that they do not own the improvements, the pavement and soforth, that
the City of Wilmington put this pavement thereand they belong to the City'
of Wilmington until they do away with this lease. According to the lease
it does spell out that the City o£ Wilmington owns the improvements until
such time as they forfeit the lease. Mr. Hall questioned whether the
parking lot would be exempt from taxation, it is income producing and
does not require exemption. Mr. Powell stated that the taxes at this
date have been charged to the land owner, for improvements. Mr. Powell
stated, at this time that Mr. Yow, City Attorney, had contacted him late
in the day of April 2nd, and stated that he thought that there were some
records that gave this property to the land owners, the improvements.
This item was given time on the next Board meeting in order for Mr. Powell
to check further with Mr. Yow.
The next item was brought to the Board's attention by Miss Josephine
Hinton. Miss Hinton's complaint o:as that all of the. lots down at Rure Beach
were doubled and she felt that some were out or propp~'tion. Mr. Vaughan
asked Mr. Powell to comment on this. Mr. Powell stated that all of this
property was involved with DC, and the ruling on the DC automatically
changed her values back. Mr. Powell stated that all the property had
been reviewed and that his recommendation was to change one lot in value
only. This is the back lot, all the rest of the lots, you can ~et to them,
they are sellable lots and the value?:placed on them in the '196'7 revaluation,
we feel are the fair market value. Mr. Vaughan briefly explained to Miss
Hinton why that her property had reverted back to the ~96'7 value, excluding
the DC. The main lots that Miss Hinton felt were unjustly valued at were
the lots that backed up to the Sunny Point Safety Zone. The lots involved
are: Block 42 Lots '16 through 2'I,,Block 43 Lots '14 through 22, ~z of Lots
2'I and 22 in this same block. These are the only lots that Miss Hinton is
contesting. Mr. Powell's recommendation was on B~ock 43 Lot 22, Mr. Powell
stated that there was no access to this lot. Mr. Douglas Powell asked why
lots 2'I and 22 in•block 42 were valued at $'1,230. Miss Hinton stated that
the only reason she could think of was that they were corner lots. Mr.
~
.
e _ r . )
MINUTES OF MEETING, MAY 2'I, ~973 - 9:0o A.M. (CONTINUED)
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: BOARD OF EQUALIZATION.itAND REVIEW (CONTINUED)
Minutes (Continued)
Vaughan asked Mr. Powell if his staff would comment on this property,
re£erring only to property located in Block 42 Lots '16 through 2'I and
Block 43 Lots '14 through 22. After much discussion on; those lots,
Mr. Powell stated that he felt that lots 2'I and 22 in block 42 should
be reviewed again, that the remaining lots in the area are in line.
Mr. Uaughan advised Miss Hinton that the Tax Office would appraise
these lots in question and have that Office notify of the conclusion
and if you iaish to again protest to the Board on those particular
lots you may do so. Block 43 Lots 2'I and 22 are in the same situa-
tion as Lots 2'I and 22 in Block 42. Therefore, it was requested
that the Tax Office also review these lots. Miss Hinton was reassured
that she could return before the Board if in disa~reement.
Mr. Bobby Harrelson represented the Suggs & Harrelson Company
and H. & P., Inc. The first complaint was in reference to the H. & P.
Company, which have two (2) lots which are being carried at the full
value, these lots are 2'7 and 28 Oak Forest. The elevation of these
lots are so that they chose not to use them and the only way they
could be used is to put excessive amounts of fill on them. Mr. Harrelson
stated that they would like to have these lots reverted back to an acreage
basis, with about 4~Z acres of marshlandz:that is adjacent. Mr. Douglas
Powell asked Mr. Harrelson if he had any intention of every doing any-
thing with this particular property. Mr. Powell's reasoning in asking
this question was that the County is always looking for property that
mrould be donated to the County. Mr. Vaughan asked Mr. Harrelson if he
would dedicate the approximately 6 acres to the County. Nr. Harrelson
z•eplied that he would be delighted to do this. Mr. Vaughan stated that
the County would tentatively accept the property with the approval of
the Board of County Commissioners. Nr. Harrelson next brought up a
complaint on Arrowhead Subdivision. The Tax Office was not familiar
with this complaint; ho~~rever, this was the appropriate time in which
to present this greivance. P1r. Harrelson stated that when a development
area is recorded, it is usually recorded for more than developed. at a
certain time. These lots carry the same value when recorded as when,
they are £inished lots. Mr. Harrelson's thinking is that he should
be tax.ed on acreage and not on lots that are not finished, such as
paving and even the clearing. Just because the area is mapped, the
tax value should not carry the finished lot. Mr. Powell and Mr. Blake
were asked by the Board to review this property and report back to the
Board. Mr. Harrelson was advised. that he Yaould be notified of the findings.
Dr. Eaton presented the complaint from East Wilmington Heights Apart-
ments. These apartments are owned by a partnership. Dr. Eaton expressed
that they v~ere seeking relie£ of taxes, because it was so hard for the
owners at the end of the year. These apartments are under the 236 Pro-
gram and the FHA regulates the amount of rent charged. Dr. Eaton stated
that the main advanta~e of being in this partnership is the depreciation
can be credited to other business operations. The maximum allowable
profit is 6%. In '196'7 whenthe revaluation schedule was arrived at,
the income approach was not involved. After breaking down these units
they are placed in accordance, not by income producing, but based on
'1967 valuation. Mrs. Wright questioned whether these apartments would
have cost $8,000 to build when they were erected. The only apartments
to make comparables then vaere Riverside and Oleander Court. Mr. Hall
questioned the land value of $40,500. Mr. Blake stated that the land
value carried was $5,000 pe.r acre. He further stated that this was the
set valuation for all apartment complexes. Mr. Vaughan asked Mr. Powell
and Mr. Blake if the apartments were priced accordingly. Dr. Eaton com-
mented that the land w.as very low evaluated in '1967• I`~'• Blake stated
that improvements were added. and. this caused the property to increase.
Mr. Vaughan made the motion to accept Mr. Powell's recommendation of
no char~e.in valuation. Mr. Douglas;'Powell seconded the motion. After
lengthy discussion from all members oS the Board, Mr. Powell stated
that the land and building are priced as replacement value. He stated
that Mr. Blake had figured these apartments on the last appraisal.
Mr. Vaughan withdrew his motion and Mr. Douglas Powell motioned that
Mr. Blake and Mr. Powell go back and reappraise this property and
similar comparables. It was decided by all members that this case
would be presented at the last meeting of the Board of Equalization
& R.eview and Dr. Eaton would be advised of that particular time.
Mr. Powell presented Mrs. A. H. Yopp's
property described as Block 4 Zot 4 Wilming
that she had sold this lot, since that vrhen
portion o£ it. Mr. Powell stated that this
with the other lots in the same situation.
to accept Mr. Powell's recommendation of no
the motion. Motion carried unanimously.
complaint concerning her
~on Beach. Mrs. Yopp assumed
high tide rises it covers a
was a good lot and in line
Mr. Douglas Powell motioned
change. Mr. Hall seconded
The Board adjourned at 'I'I:00 for a break.
The Board reconvened at 'I'I:'15.
Mr. Lewis Hubbard's property ccmplaint oras presented by Mr. Poraell.
Mr. Powell stated that when this lot was appraised in '196'7 by the appraisal
company, they just field priced it, averaging a frontage of 50' with a
depth of 60', they priced it at ~350. In comparable with other lots at
Carolina'Beach, that have been suggested be reduced because of erosion,
this lot is in line. Mr. Vaughan made the motion to accept Mr. Powell's
recommendation on no change. Mr. Douglas Powell seconded. Motion carried
t~nanimously.
~~~
MINiTTES OF MEETING, MAY 21, ~973 - 9~0o A.M. (CONTINUED)
APPROVAL OF MINUTEB: BOARD OF EQUALIZATION AND REVIEW (CONTINUED)
Minutes (Continued)
Mr. Powell presented Mrs. Danie Seitter's complaint. Mrs. Seitter
has 3 lots in a subdivision in Cape Fear Township. Her complaint is that
two of the lots will not perc. Mr. Powell stated that he had revieored
all three of these lots and would recosmend a reduction on Lot #65 of
5~/ due to this lot being low and unpaved street. The other two Lots
#67 and #68, Mr. Powell recommended no change. Mr. Hall moved that the
recommendation of the Tax Administrator be approved. Mrs. Wright second-
ed the motion. Motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Powell presented Mr. Jerry B. Vaden's property complaint. This
property is located on Country Club Road, the northern part of Lot 25 A
of Country Club Terrace. Nr. Powell stated that this was a good lot but
it does have a drainage ditch running through it. ThereSore, Mr. Powell
recommended a 20'~ reduction, reducing from $4,~00 to $3,280, due to the
drainage ditch. Mr. Hall moved that the recommendation o£ the Tax Ad-
ministrator be accepted. Mrs. Wright seconded. Motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Powell presented Mr. Lloyd Elkin's property complaint, in refer-
ence to his property described as Zot ~24 Crestwood. Mr. Powell recommends
a 2CY~ reduction due to the unpaved road which ends just before you get to
his propert~. Reducing lot £rom $2,250 to $~,800. Mr. Douglas Powell
motioned that this recommendation be approved. Mr. Hall seconded. Motion
carried unanimously.
Mr..Powell presented Mr. Foster Gordon's case. This is an item that
the Tax 0£fice had not received a complaint on; however, in the many times
that we have been reviewing the cards recently, this card was discovered
with a plus on it rather than a minus. This plus on the card is unjust to
the ta~cpayer. There was no note as to why this plus was applied to this
card. Mr. Douglas Powell motioned to accept Mr. Powell's recommendation
to remove the plus of ~240 from the card. Seconded by Mr. Hall. Unanimous-
ly approved.
Mr. Edward B. 4lar~ representi:ng Foster Hill P.ealty and 4Javerly Develop-
ment Company, appeared before the Board. Mr. Ward presented Foster Hill
Realty, his business first. Mr. Ward stated that he felt that the assessed
valuation on the build.ing and land at 'I'12 Princess Street o£ ~3'7,220 was
extremely high. He purchased this property in '1968 and paid $'16,000 for
it. Mr. Ward presented many comparables in reference to his complaint.
Mr. Ward stated that the building had depreciated very much in the past years.
Mr. Larry Powell stated. that the property then in '196'7 was priced extremely
higher than now. Mr. Powell stated that this property cannot be revaluated
unless that all the downtown property be reappraised in accordance. Mr.
Vaughan motioned to accept Mr. Powell's recommendation of no change. Mr.
Douglas Powell seconded the mction. Mr. Hall requested that Mr. Powell
and Mr. Blake make new comparisons on the two buildings. Mr. Doug~:as Powell
stated. that the appraisal should go back and compare with similar property
in 'ig6'7 regardless to the depreciation and maintenance. PYr. Vaughan again
brought up his motion to accept the Tax Administrator's recommendation,
Mr. Douglas Powell again seconded the motion. Mr. Vaughan stated that
unless there was further discussion that they would vote on it. Al1 in
£avor, Mr. Powell voted aye, Mrs. Wright stated that she would vote aye
with the understanding that the Tax Office would check into similar pro-
perty, Mr. Vaughan voted aye and Mr. Hall stated that he would have to go
along with the motion with the understanding that the Tax Office would
check it.
Mr. Edward Ward next presented Waverly Development Company. Mr. Ward
stated that he did not know until it came out in the paper that he or any-
body else was getting any consideration. This property is described
as 85.9'7 acres Oakside Park, which is in the Glenmeade Area, presently
valued at ~$2'15,'720, Mr. Vaughan explained to Mr. 4Jard the Board's decision
concerning the developer's consideration. Mr. Ward stated that he felt
that the $2'15,720 valuation was too high. Mrs. Wright stated that this
property was valued at approximatel5 ~2,500 per acre. Mr. Vaughan stated
that the Board could not make a decision on this property with developer's
consideration since they had legal stands that this developer's considera-
tion had to be taken off. Mr. Blake stated. that Mr.. Ward was being charged
$'10,000 per acre for his road frontage of which consists of approximately
'14 acres. Mr. Hall suggested to Mr. Ward that he check into the acreage,
especially on tYie road frontage. Mr. Vaughan asked if the Board cared
to leave this item open with Mr. Ward coming back to it another time if
he so desires, at one of the other two meetings. Mr. Hall stated affirma-
tive, and if the Board does not hear from him, then the Board can assume
that the quantit~~ of land is in order.
Mr. Powe11 presented Mr. A. C. Caviness' complaint concerning property
located at '1306 Queen Street. His complaint is that he bought the building
in ~959, very little improvements have been made and the lot is small, also
there has been quite a~bit of depreciation in this ar.ea. This item appear-
ed before the Board of Equalization and Review last year, with no change.
Mr. Hall motioned that the recommendation of the Tax Administrator of no
change be accepted. Mr. Vaughan seconded the motion. PTotion carried unanimous-
ly.
Mrs. A. S. Brittain's property was discussed and the Board agreed that
the Tax Administrator's recommendation were in line. Mr. Hall motioned that
these recommendations be accepted. Mr. Douglas Powell seconded the motion.
Motion carried unanimousl,y.
~9 ~'
MINUTES OF MEETING, MAY 2'I, ~973 - 9:0o a.M. (CONTINTTED)
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: BOARD OF EQUALIZATION AND REVIEW (CONTINUED)
Minutes (Continued)
Mr. Blake and ~r. Powell were asked by Mr. Hall to present before
the Board discussion concerning condemned property. This is a situation
that is of concern to other taxpayers in New Hanover County. Since Mr.
Hall is involved with this personally, he stated that he would like to
abstain from voting on the question. Mr. Vaughan asked if the Board
was in agreement with Mr. Hall being abstained from voting. The Board
consented to Mr..Hall's abstaining. Mr. Powell presented that the Tax
Office has many houses that have been condemned by the City that cannot
be restored. The policy in the past has been that unless there has
been some physical removal of the house, for example the removal of a
room, this Office does not decrease the value until the building comes
completely down. What this Office has now considered is that once the
house has been condemned and know that it cannot be repaired, since
they can only issue a permit to remove the building, if this Office
could convert this to a sound value on the building rather than holding
the value that was placed on it in '196'7. Mrs. Wright asked Mr. Powell
what he meant when he stated sound value? Mr. Powell stated this
means what the material would sell for. Mr. Shugart commented on this
subject, giving a situation that he was involved with in another part
of the State. Mr. Douglas Powell motioned that the Tax Of£ice adopt
the policy that is State wide of when a building is condemned and when
no building permit can be issued except for demolishing of building,
the Tax Office is authorized to assign a percentage to the present
value of the building for that current year. Mrs. Wright seconded
the motion. rotion carried with Mr. Vaughan votin~ aye. Mr. Hall was
allowed to abstain from voting.
Mrs. Wright motioned that the Board recess for the day. Nr. Vaughan
seconded the motion. Meeting adjourned until April '10, ~973-
~973
NEW HANOVEP. COUNTY
BOARD OF EQUAZIZATION & REVIE41
April 3rd, ~973
~:00 Swearing in of Board of Equalization and Review members and
organization of the Board.
9:3o MR. RICHARD WETHERILL 4.5 Acres 2 Mile Branch. Mr. Zarry Powell's
recommendation: Reduce from $'13,500 to $'1,350, this reduction due
to mispricin~ this property when transferred in '197~•
):45 MRS. EDNA L. FUSSELL Blk. 4'78 NW 2 Pt. 'I. Mr. Powell''s recommenda-
dation: No change. Nr. Powell will present. Valuation is $'10,240,.
'10:00 SUGGS & HARRELSON & H. & P., INC. Agent: Mr. Bobby Harrelson.
Mr. Powe ll's recommendation: Lot #2'7, presently value $2,290,
recommen d 50% cut for topo, leavi ng valuation for '19'73 at $'I,'140.
Lot #28, pre sently at $2,6'70, rec ommend 50% cut for topo, leaving
valua tion fo r '19']3 at $'1,330. Bo th lots in Oak Forest Subdivision.
'10:'15 J. H. HINTON , HRS. Agent: Miss Josephine Hinton will present.
Blk. 44 Nyz I, ots 'I/2 Kure Beach $ 820 19']3 Valuation
Blk. 29 Lots '13/'14 Kure Beach $'1,230 '19~3 Valuation
Blk. 43 Lot '7 Kure Beach $'1,020 ~973 Valuation
Blk. 43 Lot 8 Kure Beach $'1,020 ~973 Valuation
Blk. 43 Lot 9 Kure Beach $'1,020 ~973 Valuation
Blk. 43 Lot '14 Kure Beach $ 6'10 ~973 Valuation
Blk. 43 Lot '15 Kure Beach $ 6'IO ~973 Valuatiom
Blk. 43 Lot '16 Kure Beach $ 6'IO ~973 Valuation
Blk. 43 Lot '1~ Kure Beach ~ 6'IO ~973 Valuation
Blk. 43 Lot '18 Kure Beach $ 6'IO ~973 Valuation
Blk. 43 Lot '19 Kure Beach $ 6'10 ~973 Valuation
Blk. 43 Lot 20 Kure Beach $= 6'10 '19'J3 Vfiluation
B1k.~~ 43E ,Lot 2'I Kure Beach $ 820 ~973 Valuation
*Blk. 43 Lot 22 Kure Beach ~ 820 '19~3 Valuation
Blk. 43 Syz L ot '12/'13 Kure Beach $ 6'I0 '19'73 Valuation
Blk. 3'I Lot '16 Kure Beach $'1,020 '19'73 Valuation
Blk. 3'I Zot '18 Kure Beach $'1,020 ~973 Valuation
Blk. 3'f Lot 20 Kure Beach $'1,020 ~973 Valuation
Blk. 29 Lot 29 gure Beach $ 510 ~973 Valuation
Blk. 29 Lot 30 Kure Beach $ 5~~ ~973 Valuation
Blk. 29 Lot 3'I gure Beach ~ 5~0 ~973 Valuation
Blk. 29 Lot 32 Kure Beach ~: 5~~ ~973 Valuation
Blk. 29 ~ot 33 Kure Beach ~ 5~o ~973 Valuation
Blk. 29 Zot 34 Kure Beach $ 5'IO '19~3 Valuati•on
Blk. 29 Zot 35 Kure Beach $ 5~~ ~973 Valuation
Blk. 29 Lot 36 Kure Beach ~ 5~~ ~973 Valuation
Blk. 29 Lot 37 Kure Beach # 5~~ ~973 Valuation
Blk. 29 Lot 38 Kure Beach $ 5~0 'Ig73 Valuation
Blk. 29 Lot 39 Kure Beach $.`5~0 ~973 Valuation
Blk. 29 Zot 40 Kure Beach $ 510 ~973 Valuation
Blk. 42 Lot "I gure Beach $'1,230 ~973 Valuation
Blk. 42 Lot 2 %ure Beach $'1,230 ~973 Valuation
Blk. 42 Lot 3 Kure Beach $'1,020 ~973 Valuation
Blk. 42 Lot 4 Kure Beach $'1,020 '1973 Valuation
~~~
MINUTES OE MEETING, MAY 2'i, ~973 - 9:0o A.M. (CONTINUED)
APPROVAL OF MINiTTES: BOARD OF EQ.UALIZATION AND REVIEW (CONTINUED)
Minu tes (Contin ued)
Blk. 42 Lot 5 Bure Beach ~~,020 ~973 Valuation
Blk. ?+2 Lot 6 Kure Beach $~,020 '19~3 Valuation
Blk. 42 I,ot '7 Kure Beach $'I,020 ~973 Valuation'
Blk. 42 Lot '16 Kure Beach $ 6'10 ~973 Valuation
Blk. 42 Lot 'I'7 Kure Beach $ 6'10 ~973 Valuation
Blk. 42 I,ot '18 Kure Beach $ 6'10 ~973 Valuation
Blk. 42 Lot '19 Kure Beach $ 6'10 '19'73 Valuation
Blk. 42 Lot 20 Kure Beach 96 6'10 '19'73 Valuation
Blk. 42 Lot 2'I Kure Beach $'I,230 ~973 Valuation
Blk. 42 I,ot 22 Bure Beach $'1,230 ~973 Valuation
Blk. 44 Lot '13 Kure Beach $ 820 'Ig~3 Valuation
Blk. 44 I,ot '15 Kure Beach ~ 6'10 ~973 Valuation
Blk. 44 Lot 16 Kure Beach ~ 610 ~973 Valuation
Blk. 44 Lot 1'7 Kure Beach $ 6'IO ~973 Valuation
Blk. 44 Lot 'I8 Kure Beach $ 6'10 ~973 Valuation
Blk. 44 I,ot 22 Kure Beach $ 820 '1973 Valuation
Blk. 44 Lot '12 Kure Beach $ 820 ~973 Valuation
Blk. 44 'I/2 S Lot '10/'I'I Kure Beach $'1,020 ~973 Valuation
Mr. Powell' s recommendation: All lots remain the sam e with the
exce ption o f Lot #22, Blk. 43 Iiure Beach*, recommend reduction
of $ '120 due to location, with a new ~g73 valuation of $`JO~.
'10:30 EAST WILMINGTON HEIGHTS APARTI`1ENTS Agent: Dr. A. A. Eaton
vrill present. 8.'I Acres +- Princess Place Drive, valuation
of $40,500 for land and $855,980 for buildings, total $896,480.
Mr. Powell recommends no change.
'I'I:00 `MR. THOMAS A. GREGG Blk. '152 Pt. 3iT yz (Old Western Auto Store).
P"resent valuation: land $'I'],320, building $20,640, total valua-
tion $3'7,960. Mr. Powell recommends no chan~e. Mr. Powell will
present.
'I'I:'15 MR. A. S. BRITTAIN Eight (8) lots in Willow Woods Ext. Mrs.
Brittain will present. Mr. Powell's recommendations: Lot #'12
reduce from $'1,040 to $520 (50'~ topo). Lot f~'16 reduce from
$'1,400 to Sb~00 (50'~ topo), Lot #'17 reduce from $'I 400 to $~00
(5~'~ topo), Lot #24 reduce from $'1,790 to $'I,'160 ~35% topo),
Lot #34 reduce from $'1,400 to $']00 (5~'~ topo), Lot #35 reduce
from $'1,400 to $'700 (5~'~ topo), Lot ~f3~ reduce from $'1,400 to
$'700 (50% topo) and Lot #38 reduce from $'I,390 to $69~ ~5~'~
topo).
'I'1:30 ADAM I,ATTA HOME FUND Agent: Mr. Glasgow Hicks. Btik. '15'i Pt.
WM 'I. Mr. Powell will present. Mr. Powell's reco~mendation:
No change. Present valuation on property is $6,280.
'I't:45 MR. ALLEN R. BRIDGES '16.84 Acres Pt. Tract "F" Eva Marie Herring
Tract. Mr. Powell will present. Mr. Powell's recommendation:
Reduce propert5 from $'14,5']0 to $'I'1,860 due to mispricing marsh-
Zland.
12:00 LUNCH
2:00 WILMINGTONMERCHANTS DOWNTOWN PARKING CONiPANY Agent: Mr. R. H.
Holland. Blk. '152 Pt. E 3/4 & E'I/2 City Parking Lot. Mr. Powell
will present. Mr. Powell's recommendation: The improvements be
relieved from Wilmington Merchants Downtown Parking Company and
charged to the City of Wilmington. Total valuation is $88,090.
2:'15 MRS. A. H. YOPP Blk. 4 Lot ~}4, Wilmington Beach. Mr. Powell
v~ill present. Mr. Powell's recommendation: No change. Lot is
presently valued at $'1,450.
2:30 MR. I,EWIS E. HUBBARD Blk. 2'16 Zot '10, Carolina Beach. Mr. Powell
will present. Mr. Powell's recommendation: No change. Lot is
presently valued at $350.
3:00 MRS. DANIE SEITTER Lots #65, 67 and 68 Seitter Acres. Mr. Powell ,~,
will present. Mr. Powell's recommendations are as follows: Lot •
f{65 reduce from $'1,460 to $'73q (50'/o topo and unpaved). Lots #6'7
and #68, no change. Lots 67 and 68 priced $'1,460 &$'1,450 respectively.
3:~5 MR. JERRY B. VADEN N. Pt. Lot 25A Country Club Terrace. Mr. Powell
will present. Mr. Powell's recommendation: Reduce from $4,100 to
$3,280, this reduction due to drainage easement, 2Q'/ reduction.
3:30 MR. LLOYD S. ELKINS~ JR.. Lot #~24 Crestwood, Sec. 6. Mr. Powell
will present. Mr. Yowell's recommendation: Reduce from $2,250 to
$'1,800. Red.uction due from unpaved road (20'~).
3:45 MR. FOSTER GORDON Blk. 2'12 SE 4 E End 5. Mr. Powell will presenL.
Mr. Powell's recommendation: Total property valued at $'12,4'10
should be reduced to $'I2,'I'70. The plus (+) of $240 was unjustly
applied to this property.
4:00 BREAK
4:'15 MR. P_. C. CAVINESS Blk. 5'14 ~'I Pt. 2. Mr. Powell will present.
Mr. Powell's recommendation: No change. Property presently valued
at $'12,0'10 urhich is in line with other property in that area.
~ . -
~g~
MINiTTES OF MEETING, MAY 2~, ~973 - 9~00 A.M. (CONTINUED)
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: BOARD OF EQUALIZATION AND REVIEW (CONTINiJED)
Minutes (Continued)
4:30 FOSTER-HILZ REALTY AND WAVERLY DEVEZOPMENT COMPANY Agent:
Mr. Edward B. Ward will present. r'oster-Hill property, Blk.
~65 WM ~ Pt. 2 and Pt. WM 2, valued at $2~,820 and $9,400,
respectively. Mr. Powell recommends no change on both pieces
of this property. Waverly Development Company property, 85•97
Acres Oakside Park valued at $2~5,720 is priced in line and
recommends no chan~e.
ADJOURNMENT
DUE TO RECONVENE, APRIZ 'IOTH, ~973 Am ']:00 PM.
I do solemnly swear (or a£firm) that I will support and main-
tain the Constitution and laws of the~United States, and the Con-
stitution and laws of North Carolina not inconsistent therewith,
and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of my offices as
a member of the Board of Equalization and Review of New Hanover
County, North Carolina, and that I will not allow my actions as
a member of the Board of Equalization and Review to be influenced
by personal or political friendships or obligations, so help me
God.
(s) Mike H. Vaughan
(s) J. M. Hall, Jr.
(s) W. Dou$las Powell
(s) Peter Davis
(s) Vivian Wright
I administered and witnessed the above oath to the Board
of Equalization and Review.
Witness
Clerk of Court"
"~973
NE41 AANOVER COUNTY
BOARD OF EQUAI,IZATION & REVIEW
The 'i973 Board of Equalization & Review reconvened on April 'IOth,
'Ig73 at ']:00 P.M. for the purpose of reviewing property complaints.
Mr. M. H. Vaughan was absent from this meeting; therefore, Mrs.
Vivian Wright presided as Chairman of the Board. Mrs. Wright called
the meeting to order and asked Mr. Mike Hall to give the invocation.
Mr. Peter Davis and Mr. Douglas Powell were present.
The first case called to the Board's attention was H. T. Wilson
property presented by Mrs. Catherine Wilson Littleton. This property
is located at 'I4'I4 South 4th Street. Mrs. Wilson's complaint was that
there had been an apartment on the second floor of this house, which
according to Mrs. Wilson has been closed for some time. Mr. Powell's
recommendation on this property was to reduce from a one story and a
half to~one story and an attic. This reduced the value from $~,900
to ~7,040. Mr. Douglas Powell moved that the Tax Administrator's recom-
mendation be accepted. Mr. Peter Davis seconded the motion. Motion
carried unanimously.
Mr. Arthur L. McKee presented his complaint on property described
as Lot 4/5 Blk. '104 Carolina Beach, or 603 Cape Fear Blvd. Mr. McKee's
comZ3a~irit was that these lots had been priced off a side street, when
Mr. Mcgee erected his house, he faced the house on Cape Fear Blvd. rather
than the side street, which carries a higher unit value per foot on Cape
Fear than on the side street. Therefore, this property was priced accord-
ing to the way his house was facing, or the entrance to the property. The
lots increased from $'I,'130 to $2,620. Mr. Douglas Powell asked.iP this
was in accordance with the other lots in the same area. Mr. Powell replied
that it was priced in line with property on that same boulevard. Mr. Peter
Davis stated that he felt this was a clear cut case as to where there has
been no change in the man's property and the lots and that if the lots are
going to be revalued it should be done in a revaluation year. He further
stated that if the man had not put the house on the lot the lots would have
been at the old value this year. He stated that he did not think that the
way he faced his house should increase the valuation. Mr. Davis motioned
that Mr. McKee's property ~be revalued at the '1972 rate. Mrs. Wright
seconded the motion. After much more discussion concerning the property,
rrs. Wright requested that the motion be read again, it was done, Mr. Davis
rephased that the motion should state, plus the house. Motion carried
unanimously.
MINiJTES OF MEETING, MAY 2~, ~973 - 9~0o A.M. (CONTINUED)
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: BOARD OF EQUALIZATION AND REVIEW (CONTINUED)
Minutes (Continued)
Mr..W. Alex Fonvielle, Jr. presented three parcels of property.
The first presented was 306 North Fifth Street property, presently
valued at $6,5'10. Mr. Fonvielle stated that he rented the building
for $35.00 per month, plus he paid the water bill. He stated that
he was going to have it torn down, since it was goin~ to be so expensive
to repair. He stated that the appraisal on the building of $5,4'10 was
not a fair appraisal. The second complaint Mr. Fonvielle presented
was 606 North 5th Street. He sold this house for $1,400 and has no
further interest in the house, but stated that the appraised value
of $3,4'10 on the property was not fair. Mr. Davis asked i£ there had
been any cnanges in the building since '1967. Mr. Fonvielle stated that
the building was condemned and. that the people who bought it had repair-
ed a little bit. Mr. Davis asked if the buildin~ was condemned now.
Mr. Fonvielle replied that it was condemned and that the people have
spent about $500 on repairs. He £urther stated that $2,000 would be
the top price for the house. Mr. Fonvielle presented '16'18 Nun Street;
it was the old Dorothy Owens Florist Shop. He stated that the bui~lding
had not been used in over '10 years, the florist equipment or hothouses
are in the falling down sta~e. ~r. Fonvielle stated that he bought
the building last year and got Carolina Savings & Loan Association
and Cooperative Savin~s & Loan Association to appraise it, they informed
Mr. Fonvielle that it was worth $2,500 and that was what he paid for it.
Mr. Davis asked if the building had deteriorated drastically since '196'].
Mr. Larry Powell stated that in '196'] the building and 1'aiid we.re appraised
at $'],'740, this was presented to the Board of Equalization and Review
in '1969 and the Board reduced to $5,230, so there has been a$2,000
reduction since '196'7. Mr. Fonvielle stated that the only reason that
he has not torn down the building is that a black sorority wants to
rebuild the building. Mr. Blake stated that he had checked with the
City building inspectors to see if the building is in bad shape. Mr.
Fonvielle stated that the hold-up for the sorority not buying was the
lack of adequate parking. Mr. Davis moved that the Board grant a re-
duction on the property of $'1,650 due to extended deterioration, that
he feels has been displayed here, on this one piece of property, he
stated that this reduction would bring the property down close to what
Mr. Fonvielle was offering it for sale, which was $3,500. Mr. Hall stated
that he could see a$'I,000 reduction for deterioration in the length of
time between '1969 and ~9'73. Mr. Davis asked Mr. Fonvielle if he would
accept a$'I,000 reduction. Mr. Hall stated that he would have to accept.
Mr. Davis rephased his motion to read a$'I,000 reduction. Mr. Hall
seconded Mr. Davis' motion. Unanimously carried. Mrs. Wright asked
for a motion on the other.two pieces of property. Mrs. Wright asked
for a motion first on 606 North Fifth Street. Mr. Davis seccnded the
motion. Unanimously carried. Mr. Fonvielle at this time mentioned that
he had a call from Dr. Eaton concerning East Wilmington Heights Apart-
ments. Mr. Fonvielle stated that Dr. Eaton had requested Mr. Fonvielle
to bring this case up. He further stated that Dr. Eaton said he was be-
ing charged the same assessment as Glen Meade Apartments. Mr. Larry
Powell stated that Glen Meade Apartments were appraised at $8,970 per
unit. East Wilmington Heights Apartments are $'7,'720 per unit, a
difference of $'1,250 per unit on these particular units. He further
stated that he was•prepared tomorrow with all the comparables on this ,s•.~ ~;
particular case. Mrs. Wright stated that a motion was needed on 306
North Fifth St. Mr. Hall moved that no change be made. Mr. Douglas
Powell seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously.
Nr. John H. Debnam presented a complaint on 2']5-2'7'7 North Front
Street. Mr. Debnam stated that he had received correspondence revert-
ing his property from $6'1,8'10 to $5'1,840 due to receiving the 20'~ re-
duction for excess back. He stated that the reason for his coming
was there had not been any reduction of valuation on the property
since the City built an access which blocked the entrance on Grace
Street. The ramp from the parking deck caused the loss of the tenants
in the basement. Mr. Debnam stated that he had two appraisals made on
the property, both are dated November 3, 'I~'72, one is by Rogers:Matthews
and one by Walter Hewlett. They placed the value of the property at
$29,000 for the land and $'12,000 for the cbuilding £or a combination
of $4'I,000. Mr. Debnam stated that they had received no compensation
from the City when this parking deck was erected. The building of this
ramp virtually made the basement obsolete. Mr. Hall asked when the
parking deck was constructed, all were unsure of the exact year in which
it was started. Mr. Hall's reasoning in this question was that if com-
pensation was already allowed by the appraisal company in '196'], then
this Board would be unable to allow further consideration. Mr. Douglas
Powell asked Mr. Blake if he could determine whether or not this pro-
perty received any consideration from the ramp being constructed. Mr.
Blake stated that there was 20% functional depreciation given on this
property at the last revaluation. Mr. Hall stated that this property
should be reviewed and determine whether this property was given any
consideration due to the parkin~ deck being built. Mr. Powell stated
that the 20% could have been allowed for the grade of the lot and not
for the parking deck ramp. Mr. Hall requested that the Tax Office check
in the facts and present back to the Board tomorrovr as to whether any
compensation was allowed. Mr. Larry Powell asked Mr. Debnam about the
'1966 transfer of land back to Mr. Debnam from the City. Mr. Debnam stated
that they had to purchase a certain area when the ramp was built so they
could get in and out of the building. Mrs. Wright informed Mr. Debnam
that the `~ax Office would check into the exact dates as to when the
parking deck started construction and that he would be informed of
the decision of the Board.
MINUTES OF MEETING, MAY 2~~ ~g~3 - 9~00 A.M. (CONTINUED)
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: BOARD OF E9UALIZATION AND REVIEW (CONTINUED)
Minutes (Continued)
Mr. Powell presented Mr. Robert Z. McGee's property complaint. Mr. McGee's
property is located out in Cape Fear Township~ just off of Highway 'I'1~. Mr.
Powell's suggestion in reduction of his value is due to the fact that he has
torn down two of the rooms in the back, one on the side and he feels that
what is remaining should have additional functional depreciation because
there is nothing to the structure. Mr. Powell requested that the total
valuation be reduced from $2,'740 to $'I,600. Mr. Douglas Powell motioned
to accept Mr. Powell's recommendation. Mr. Peter Davis seconded the motion.
Motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Larry Powell next presented 1:1r. Homer B. Chadwick's property
complaint. This property is located in Federal Point Township on Coastal
Ave. There are two houses in question here; however, they valuation has
been combined at a total of $6,530. One of the houses was moved from
Carolina Beach and just dropped on the property. Mr. Powell suggested
that a valuation of $500 be put on this house. The other house had been
priced and graded at a D grade and in reviewing the construction of the
house it is not a D grade house,in comparison with other D grade houses.
rr. Powell suggested that this house be changed to an E grade, with a
50% physical depreciation. Mr. Powell's recommendation would reduce
the total valuation to $2,360,! Mr. Douglas Powell motioned to accept
Mr. Larry Powell's recommendation. Mr. Hall seconded the motion. Unanimously
carried.
Mr. Larry Powell presented Mr. Steve George's property located at
'72'I-23-25 North 4th Street. Mr. Powell stated that this property again
was in the high price area, this value being made in '196~. The total
valuation on building and land is $,36,040. Mr. Powell's recommendation
is no change. Mr. George's complaint is that the valuation is too high,
and cannot rent the property. Mr. Davis asked if the building had de-
teriorated at all. Mr. Blake stated that the building had not deteriorated
much at all. Mr. Blake stated that windows were broken and is in fairly
bad shape. Mr. Davis asked if any credit had been given for the broken
~aindows. Mr. Blake stated that no credit had been given. Mr. Davis asked
if maybe some credit should be given for the broken windows. Mr. Blake
stated that we were not keeping him from replacing these windows, if
they were replaced, this office would not go back and charge him with
them. Mr. Douglas Powell stated that the deterioration was the owner's
choice. Mrs. Wr,ight moved that the property remain at the present value.
Mr. Douglas Powell seconded the motion. Mrs. Wright, Mr. Hall and Mr.
Powell voted aye. Mr. Davis voted nay.
Mr. James G. Henderson's complaint was presented by Mr. Powell
Mr. Henderson's property is located off of Huntington Road behind Cape
Fear Hospital. Mr. Powell recommended a 20'~ reduction due to topo since
there is a large ditch on one side and the middle oP the lot is actually
low. With a 20'/o reduction, the property would be reduced from $2,'130
to $'I,'700. Mr. Davis moved to accept Mr. Powell's recommendation. Mr.
Dou~las Powell seconded the motion. Unanimously carried.
Mr. Powell presented Mrs. I,illian gekel's property located at
Carolina Beach. Mr. Powell's recommendation on Mrs. Kekel's property
is to reduce from $2,']50 to $450. The beach erosion has just about
claimed the entire lot. Mr. Powell stated that this valuation pre-
sented was in line with other property in this same situation. Mr.
Douglas Powell motioned to accept Mr. Larry Powell's recommendation.
Mr. Hall seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Charlie G. Miller's property was next presented by Mr. Powell.
Mr. Miller's property is described as Lot 25 Sec. H. Piney Woods. Mr.
Powell stated that this lot had been partially filled in as it was
extremely low the first of the year. It is an irregular shaped lot.
Of course, the Tax Office will pick up an additional value on the im-
provements on this lot next year. He recommended that the lot be re-
duced by $'1,150. Mr. Hall motioned to accept the Tax Administrator's
recommendation. Mr. Douglas Powdl seconded. Motion carried unanimous-
ly.
Mr. Larry Powell presented property complaint for Mr. K. W. Jewell,
Sr. Property described as Blk. 60 Lot '19 Carolina Beach. Mr. Jewell's
complaint was that there is a ditch running through the property. Mr:
Powell stated that a house could not be erected on the lot: Mr. Douglas
Powell moved to accept Mr. Zarry Powell's recommendation of allowing a
35% reduction, reducing the property from $900 tp ~580 due to low topo.
Mr. Hall seconded tlie motion. Motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Powell presented to the Board Mrs. Bessie Orrell's complaint.
Mr. Powell stated that originally this office had '13.83 acres of road
frontage priced at,$2,000 with 16.'7'7 acres of ocean front priced at
$8,000 and 6.~4 acres oE wood lands priced at $350. In comparing this
property with the adjoining property, the ocean front property oP the
comparable reflects that the property is priced at $8,000, but all
other property regardless of facing the road is priced at wood land
figures of $800 percacre. Mr. Powell recommended that Mrs. Orrell's
property be priced in accordance with adjoining property and allowed
a 35% reduction due to the excessive amount of acreage that she had
in that location. Mr. Douglas Powell asked why give someone a re-
duction for excess acreage. Mr. Blake stated that this was excess
ocean front. The other comparable property also had reduction for
excess. The recommendation Mr. Powell suggested would reduce the
total valuation from $164,'180 to $9'],900. Mr. Hall motioned that ~
the recommendation of the Tax Administratorl be accepted. Mrs. Wright
seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously.
4Q~
MINLTTES OF MEETING, MAY 2'I, ~973 - 9:0o a.M. (CONTINtTED)
APPROVAL OF MINiTTES: BOARD OF EQUALIZATION AND REVIEW (CONTINUED)
Minutes (Continued)
Mr. Davis motioned that the Board of Equalization and 'Z?eview recess.
Mr. Douglas Powell seconded the motion. Carried unanimously.
~973
NEW HANOVER COUNTY
BOARD OF EQUALIZATION & REVIEW
April 'IOth, ~973
'7:00 H. T. WILSON Agent: Mrs. Catherine Wilson Zittleton. Mrs.
Littleton will present. Blk. 5'74 Lots 4/'12. Property lo-
cation, '14'14 South 4th Street. Mr. Powell's recommendation:
Reduce from story and a half to 'I story and attic. Removal
of multiple family price. Reduce from ~'7,900 to ~~,004.
'7:'15 MR. ARTFNR L. MCKEE Blk. '104 Zots 4/5 Carolina Beach. Mr.
McKee will present. Mr. Powell's recommendation: No change.
Lots and house presently valued at $26,~'70; lots at $2,620
and house at $24,'150.
`7:30 ADRIr~viv~ H. DEBNAM Agent: Mr. John H. Debnam. Mr. Debnam
will present. Blk. '190 NE 'I. Property located at 2'75-2'7'7
North Front Street, (The Julia Shop and Household Finance).
Mr. Powell's recommendation: No change. ~g~3 valuation is,
land $39,860, building $'I'1,980, total $5'1,840.
']:45 MR. W. ALEX FONVIEI,I,E Mr. Fonvielle will present. Three pieces
of property. Slk. 505 Pt. Lot 2'I. Property located '16'18 Nun
Street, Dorothy Owens Florist Shop. Present valuation is
$5,230, land $'1,900, with building at $3,330. Mr. Powell
recommends no change. Blk. 250 Pt. W End 3/4. Propert~
located at 606 North 5th Street. Mr. Powell recommends
no change. Blk. 208 Pt. WM & SW 4 NW 5, 306 North Fifth
St. Present valuation on land is $'I,'100, building $5,4'10,
total $6,5'I0. Mr. Powell recommends no change.
8:00 MRS. BESSIE ORRELL Mrs. Orrell will present. Propertg 3'].34
acres Ft. Fisher. Mr. Powell recommends, that '13.83 acres
of road frontage be changed to timber land at $800 per acre,
for a total of $'16,460 in valuation, this i's combining with
6.'74 acres of timber land, for a total acreage of 20.5'7.
Suggest that the ocean front acreage of '16.'7'] remain priced
the same, $8,000 for a total valuation of $'134,'160. Also,
suggest a 35% reduction due to excessive acreage. The
changes in pricing and reduction bring the total valuation
from $'164,'180 to ~97•900.
8:'15 Mr. I,arry Powell will present the following complaints:
MR. ROBERT L. MCGEE Tract 300' x'126' Pt. '14 Hermitage.
Mr. Yowell's recommendation: On building value only, re-
duction of $'I,'140. This changes total valuation from $2,~40
to $'1,600. Su~gest reduction due to functional depreciation
and removal of portion of building.
MR. HOMER B. CIiADWICg Blk. 4 Lot '14 Tucker-Burnett (Federal
Point) Located on Coastal Ave. Mr. Powell's recommendation:
Reduce building value only from $6,530 to $2,360. Reduction
of $4,'I'70 due from physical depreciation and grade factor.
MR. STEVE GEORGE Blk. 263 E'I/2 'I. Located at ~2~-23-25
North 4th Street. Mr. Powell's recommendation: No change.
Present land value3 is $6,970, buildings $29,0'70; total
valuation of $36,040.
MR. JAMES G. hrrvli~x,50N Blk. E Lot 'I'] Piney Acres, Section
6. Mr. Yowell's recommendation: Reduce from ~$2,'130 to $'I,~00
due to topo (20% reduction).
MRS. LILLIAN KEKEL Agent: Mr. I,eonard Clark. Blk. 2'12 Lot 'I
Carolina Beach. Mr. Powell's recommendation: Reduce from
$2,'750 to $450. Erosion has just about claimed this lot.
MR. CHARLIE G. MILLER All I,ot 25 Sec. H. Piney Woods. Mr.
Powell's recommendation: Reduce from $3,290 to $2,'140 due
to topo and excess (35% reduction).
MR. B. W. JEWEI,Li SR. Blk. 60 Lot '19 Carolina Beach. Mr.
Yowell's recommendation: Reduce from $900 to $580 due to
low topo. This allows a 35% reduction."
~o~
MINUTES OF r~~l•ING, MAY 2'I, ~973 - 9~00 A.M. (CONTINUED)
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: BOARD OF E~UALIZATION AND REVIEW'(CONTINUED)
~inutes (Continued)
"~ 973
NE4J HANOVER COUNTY
BOARD OF EQUAI,IZATION AND REVIEW
April llth, 1973
The ~g73 Board of Equalization and Review reconvened at 9:00 on
April 'I'ith, ~973 for the purpose of reviewing taxpayer's complaints.
Present at the meeting were: Mrs. Vivian Wright, PYr. Mike Vaughan,
Mr. Mike Hall, Mr. Douglas Powell and Mr. Peter Davis. Mr. Vaughan
presided as Chairman oY the Board.
Mr. A. Dumay Gorham, Jr. and Mr. William T. Miars presented a
complaint, in behalf o£ the owners of the Mts chison Building, Mr.
John M. Trask, Jr. and Mr. David Naybank, Jr. The Murchison Building
is presently valued at $383,930 for the building and $151,830 £or the
land, total combination of ~535,760. Mr. Gorham stated that they had
two complaints to present. He stated that due to mutual misunderstand-
ing the propert3~ had not been listed until the deadline has past. Mr.
Gorham stated that both, Mr. Trask and Mr. Maybank resided in Charleston,
South Carolina, with Nr. Miars managin$ the leasing and renting of•the
Murchison Building. Mr. Trask and Mr. Maybank had assumed that the
tax abstract had been delivered to I`Ir. Miars and Mr. Miars assumed
that it had been delivered to them and each thinking the other had
completed. He stated that when it was discovered that in fact that
the tax abstract had never been mailed from the Tax Office, of course,
the Tax Office apparently did not have the correct mailing address
for either Mr. Trask or Mr. Maybank, he tried to follow up to under-
stand the reason for the obmission. Mr. Gorham stated that when the
property was transferred they v:ere requested to file a copy of the
deed with the Register of Deeds so that new property owners could be
known to the Tax Office. Apparently, somewhere along the line the
address was not picked up. Mr. Gorham stated th~ he felt this was
an inadverted obmission, there was certainly no intentional non-
listing of the property and it has been on the books for years and
will continue to be on books for years. Mr. Vaughan asked Mr. Larry
Powell if he would comment on this. Mr. Powell stated that the office
was having many deeds coming through that do not have addresse~s, he
stated that the office trys to locate the owners. We have been work-
ing with P1rs. ZeRay to see to it that when tYe attorneys record a
deed that the correct address is furnished, even if it is the attorney's
address, so that the tax abstract and tax bill can get back into the
hands of someone who can direct it to the proper person. Mr. Hall
asked what the answer to this problem was. Mr.~'Powell stated that
Mrs. LeRay had informed him that she had instructed her clerks to re-
quest these addresses. It was an added burden when she had to take
this on to require an extra deed, but she stated that she was tryin$
to do the best to get the addresses on the deeds. Mr. Vaughan asked
Mr. Powell if he couldn't refuse to accept the deeds or couldn't this
Commission direct Mr. Powell to refuse deeds unless there is an address
of owner. Mr. Hall stated that the burden of this has to be placed on
Mrs. LeRa,y, since the transfer takes place there. Mr. Hall further
stated that he thought the Chairman should direct Mrs. LeRay that usider
no circumstances are they to accept the deeds until such time as they
have an address, either of the attorney who is presenting or the agent
or the bona fide address of one of the transferees. Mr. Douglas Powell
stated that he £elt it should be the address of the owner. Mr. Vaughan
stated that he would get the letter out today. Mr. Davis stated that
it was just as much fault of the attorneys as it was Mrs. LeRay's.
Mr. Vaughan asked if the Board was authorizing him to advise Mrs. LeRay
that Mr. Powell has been authorized not to accept the deeds until the~~
owners' address is on them. Mr. Vaughan asked Mr. Powell what the office
did since there was not an address on tlie Murchison Building. Mr.
Powell stated that on this particular case, Mr. Blake talked with the
new owners and acquired an address. Mr. Blake stated that the date
he talked with the new owners sometime after tax listing time. Mr.
Vaughan stated that in view of the large amount of money that they
have spent on the building and the additional value to the City, it
seems very appropriate to remove the penalty in this confused situation
and he so moved. Mr. Douglas Powell stated that he would second tYe
motion, but not for the same reason. Mr. Hall stated that he would
like Mr. Uaughan, if he ~,~ould, to strike out Lhe large amount of money
as stated in his motion. Mr. Vaughan stated that he would stx~iike out
the large amount of money spent on the building. Mr. Vaughan rephased
his motion to read that he was very gratified that they are spending a
lot of money and that it was his pleasure that if this Board so desires
that it can eliminate this penalty. Motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Gorham's second request was based on the property itself. Mr.
Gorham stated that the purchase price of the buildings and land when it
was purchased on July 31, 19']2 was $235,000. The appraised tax value
for that year for the land and the building was more than double that,
~535,760. He stated that in view of the purchase price and although
there has been some improvements as of January 'I, of this year, the
appraised ta~s value is really excessive and request a~y consideration
that might be given to an adjustment of that appraised tax value in view
of the purchase price. Mr. Vaughan asked the Board to comment on this.
Mr. Hall stated that this was the same problem they were faced with on
all the downtown property and that until the revaluation occurred there
was nothing they could do, the whole area would have to be done.
~~~
MINiJTES OF MEETING, MAY 2'I, ~973 - 9~0o a.M. (co~r2n~D)
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: BOARD OF EQ,UALIZATION AND REVIEW (CONTINUED)
Minutes (Continued)
At this time, Nis: 4Tilliam Miars presented a complaint on
Dr. Charles Graham's property. Mr. Vaughan asked Mr. Powell if
he would present. Mr. Powell stated he would not have any recom-
mendation, since he has not compared the property or reviewed.
it. Mr. Powell stated that he would have to review this pro-
perty and make his recommendations at a later time. Mr. Vaughan
informed Mr. Miars that the Board would have the Tax Department
take a look at the property and he would be notified of the
decision. '
Mr. R. B. Bell of Bell's whoes, Inc. presented his case con-
cerning the late listing penaity of his business. Mr. Bell stated
that he was not of the opinion that he had to make his stock re-
port, giving his taxes by March '15th, he gave them.in on March
28th. Of course, Mr. Bell was advised that he would be subject
to a penalty. He stated that he would like to get this penalty
oYf, not so much for himself but for his stockholders. He further
stated that it turned out that even after he made his report, for
due to a new corporation and being inexperienced, he gave his stock in
at $31,000 and.it proved to be only $29,000. There£ore, he stated he
would be penalized on the #31,000 and it would cost the corporation
about $60.00. He stated that he respectfully request th~ the'penalty
be removed. Mr. Bell's auditor informed Mr. Bell that he had not taken
the property depreciation and actually his report should have only
been listed at $29,000. Mr. Hall stated that tka Board might be able
to give some consideration to a rebate to adjusting the stock, but
he stated that he didn't know about the penalty because the last case
that was heard seemed to be the County's fault; however, in this case it
seems to be the property owner's failure to be aware of it or to
have it in time. Mr. Bell stated that he could furnish the T~
Office with his auditor's report. Mr. Hall motioned that Mr. Bell
furnish the Ta~s Office with his auditor's report on the proper
value of the stock and that it be adjusted accordingly, but that
the penalty not be forgiven. Mr. Davis seconded. Mr. Douglas
Powell asked Mr. Bell if he had received any correspondence from
the Tax Of£ice. P'tr. Be4 stated that he did not. Mr. Larry Powell
stated that the Tax Office had no way of knowing o£ a new business
opening in August of '19'7~. In May, when checked he would hsve been
notified, but still would have been penalized. Mr. Bell asked that
when he paid his $60.00 tax for privilege licenses, if that was not
some sort of record. Mr. Douglas Powell stated that he felt that
since that this was a new business and that there was no intent of
non-listing meant; in view of his oversight and knowled~e of corn
business, that it was not the same case as someone who knew they had
a tax obligation and just ignored it. Mrs. Wright asked Mr. Bell
about the dates that he had mentioned earlier of March '15th and 28th.
Mr. Bell stated that he knew that he had to make a federal report in
March and that he was thinking it was the same thing. He stated, that
in other words, just forget about it. Mr. Davis asked Nir. Powell if there
was not some way that, when people purchased business license for new
b.usinesses that their names be written on a list and then in January
they be forwarded the tax package. Mr. Powell stated that the accountant
usually informed the party, when a new business is formed, of his
tax obligations. Mr. Powell stated that once the businesses were
on the mailing list there was no problem. Mr. Davis asked Mr. Bell
if his auditor informed him. Mr. Bell stated that he did not. Mr.
Powell stated that the clerical staff usually prepared the auditin~
of the busi.ness licenses in May, that in order to prepare earlier it
would require additional help. Mr. Bell stated that when a man
purchases a business privilege license he ought to be informed of
what he should do. He also stated that whether this Board relieved
this penalty or not that he certainly hoped that for the benefit o£
others in the future, it could be done and he thought that the Tax
Office could do it. Mrs. Wright asked if some sort of form letter
could be sent out to the new businesses when they paid their privilege
licenses and advise them that they would be requ~d to list their
taxes in January. Mr. Hall stated that this could be done`at the
time when they purchased their business license, a little form that
stated that they must list their inventory d,urixg January or before
February 'Ist of the following year. Mr. Vaughan suggested stapling
it to the license when giving it to the man. Mr. I,arry ~owell stated
it could actually be printed on the privilege license. Mr. Bell
stated that he had actuall~ presented his inventory report to the Tax
Office on February 28th, ~9'73. Mr. Hall stated that he would like to
rephrase his motion to read that Mr. Bell be given credit for his
overstatement of stock. Mr. Davis seconded. Unanimously carried.
Mr. Hall then motioned that under the circumstances the penalty not
be removed. Mr. Vaughan seconded the motion. Mrs. Wright, Mr. Davis,
Mr. Hall and Mr. Vaughan voted aye. Mr. Douglas Powell voted nay.
Mr. Ivan George Sleeman presented the complaint that '1.5 acres
of land he owns in Federal Point Township was marshland and the
valuation of $'7,560 was too high; also, this property is contaminated.
The previous valuation of this property was ~b3,020; however, with the
removal of developer's consideration, this property reverted to ~'7,560.
Mr. Vau~han stated that Mr. Powell's recommendation was to reduce the
land from $'7,560 to ~'150. This reduction was due to this land being
marshland, which is~;priced at $'100 per acre. Mr. Davis moved that the
Tax Administrator's recommendation be accepted. Mr. Douglas Powell
seconded the motion. Unanimously carried.
405
NIN-iTTES OF MEETING, MAY 2'I, ~9~3 - 9~00 A.M. (CONTIft'UED)
APPROVAI, OF MINU'EES: BOARD OF EAUALIZATION AND REVIEW (CONTINUED)
Minutes (Continued)
Dr. H. A. Eaton represented East Wilmington Heights Apartments.
Dr. Eaton stated that he was present just to summarize his reguest
of April 3rd, ~973, concerning the reduction of valuation for
East Wilmington Heights Apartments. Dr. Eaton stated that their
goal on this apartment complex is to break even, and this was not
being done and they o~ere running about two months behind in their
debts. He stated that the only way the~ see they can profit is to
request from HUD an increase in rent, which they are in the process
of doing now, and to get relie£ in their taxes, which are running about
$'18,000 a year. Dr. Eaton stated that he and Nir. Blake had made a
comparison between East Wilmington Apartments and Glen Meade 6partments
and that there was guite a discrepancy, with East Wilmington valued at
a much lesser amount, but that amount, in their o.pinion, is not large
enough, either Glen Meade should be priced more, which are considered
to be luxury apartments, or East Wilmington should be reduced. Dr.
Eaton stated that he had not personallg visited Glen Meade, but he
understood that the~ had a swimming pool, recreation building, the
- apartments have dishwashers, disposals, air conditioning, cazp eting
and that all of them either have one and a half baths or two. He
stated that none of East Wilmington Apartments have any of these
additional assets. Dr. Eaton stated that if they were just breaking
even that he would not even be here, but they are not and that relief
has to be sought in order to operate these apartments. Nir. Hall asked
what the difference in the valuation was between the two apartments.
Mr. Powell stated that the difference was $'1,248; Glen Meade Apartments
are valued at $8,968 per unit, with East Wilmington Heights being
~'7,'720 per unit. Mr. B1ake stated that the difference in construction
of apartments was that East Wilmington Heights was not up to the same
class as Glen Meade. This difference of $'1,248 is the actual cost
difference in construction of buildings. The dishwashers, stoves,
etc.are considered personal property. Mrs. Wright asked Mr. Powell
if he had any other comparables at this time. Mr. Powell stated that
East Wilmington Heights had presented an actual cost o£ the construction
as of November `J, '19'J'I, which totals $'I,'169,483; this was the actual
constsizction in '19~'I. Mr. Powell stated, to work it back to the '1967
date, he took ']8% of that figure, after he.minused four items that he
felt were not a part of the construction cost, those items being:
interest during construction -$52,802; taYes during construction -
~5,596; property insurance -$4,383; and mortgage insurance premium
of ~~~,599• This left a construction cost of $'1,094,803. That would
have been the market value in '197'I. Of that, '78% of that would have
been market value in '196~. So '78% of that figure would be ~853,946
and then to that there is no labor cost included in this break-down,
so he plused it by 8% 'For labor cost at that time, would bring the
property value to $922,26'I; this is on the books at ~855,98~• ~'•
Blake stated that the 8% labor cost was aii'ded due to FHI~ regulations
that East Wilmington Heights are not allowed to receive a normal
con~tractor's profit. Mr. Davis stated, that as a builder and contractor
knowing '196'7 values, not as well as Mr. Blake, but knowing personally
what the cost of construction has done in the past two years, he first
hand and personally felt that in comparison to the Glen Meade Apartments,
this property is pretty much overvalued. Nr. Blake stated that in
just the past two years prices have gone up even higher. Mr. Blake
further stated that these are '19'7'I figures, when the East 4lilmington
Heights Apartments were completed. Nir. Davis asked what the land
value was of Glen Meade Apartments. Mr. Larry Powell stated that it
was $5,000 per acre. Mrs. 4lright asked Mr. Powell if he would present
the comparisons on Oleander Apartments. Mr. Davis asked Mr. Powell what
the land was valued for Oleander Apartments. Mr. Blake stated that
Oleander Court Apartments land value was the only one in Wilmington
that was valued higher, when Southern Appraisal Compan~ valued this
land they used the actual £ront footage.price down Oleander Drive; there-
fore, Oleander Court Apartments have 5.07 acres and valued at $66,360.
Everythin~ else, as far as apartment complex are valued at $5,000 per
acre. Mr. Davis asked Dr. Eaton how much they paid for the land that ~
East Wilmington Heights apartments is located. Dr. Eaton replied that
it was somewhere around $26,000 or $2'],000. Mr..Davis stated he did
not think in '196'7 that East Wilmington could have gotten 9640,000 for
this property. Mr. Davis stated that this substantiates his state-
~ ment that in '196'] the property was worth no where near $40,000. Mr.
Vaughan asked if the land was not worth $40,000 in 'Ig6'7, how can the
Tax Office place this value on it now. Mr. Blake stated that the use
of the land placed the value of $5,000 per acre, and keeping in in line
iaith other apartment complex. Mr. Davis stated that this was not
eguitable, whether the apartments were garden apartments or low income
apartments. Mr. Vaughan asked Mr. Powell to express an opinion on
Mr. Davis' last comment. Mr. Powell stated that the type o£ apart-
ment would have some bearin~ on the value of the land, but maybe the
arden apartments should carry a land value higher than $5,000, the
~5,000 might truly represent an apartment complex of an average type.
P1r. Vaughan asked for a motion on just the land value. Mr. Hall
moved that the land value be set at $30,500. Mr. Douglas Powell
seconded "the motion. Motion carried unanimously. The figure of
~855,°r80 represented the building value, this including the improve-
ments, such as; paving, sidewalks, gutters, etc. Mr. Blake stated
that these improvements had been deeded over to the City. Mr. Davis
stated that a~ain being in the business and knowing this £irst hand,
having a very strong feeling of construction cost and having seen
Glen Meade, and having seen East 4lilmington, they are not comparable
property. They have difference in construction, the shrubbery, the
location, everything; the market value of Glen Meade would be ai
~os
MINUTES OF MEETING, MAY 2~, ~973 - 9:0o A.M. (
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: BOARD OF EQUALIZATION AND REVIEW (CONTIN[TED)
Minutes (~ontinued)
easy 4o'~ over East Wilmin~ton. Mrs. Wright stated that the Board's
big question at this time is what were similar apartments priced at
in ~967. She stated that the oleander comparison is the best one to
chose from. Mr. Larry Powe11 stated that the first phase of Forest
Hills Apartments is built pretty much similar t:o East Wilmington
Heights and is priced at $~,3~0 per unit. .This was priced in ~96~
and erected in ~96~ and the appraisal company came in and gave
physical depreciation in the amount of 2 or 3 percent. Mr. Blake
stated that when he appraised East Wilmington Heights he did not
give ar~y physical depreciation because they were new. After much
more discussion, Mrs. Wright stated that she was inclined to think
that it would be fair to price it in line with Forest Hills Apart-
ments. Mrs. Wright motioned that East Wilmington and Forest Hills
Apartments (Phase I), be placed at the same valuation per unit.
Mrs. Wright further motioned that East Wilmington Heights value
per unit of $7,~20 be reduced to Forest Hills Apartments value per
unit of $~,370.. Mr. Hall seconded the motion. Mr. Davis motioned
that the figure be changed to a reduction of $720 to bring'the
value down to ~~,000 per unit as the value of the East Wilmington
Apartments is obviously less than the value of the Forest Hills
Apartments. Mr. Davis' motion died for lack of a second. Mr.
Vaughan asked for a vote on Mrs. Wright's motion. Mr. Hall, Mr.
Douglas Powell and Mr. Vaughan ayed Mr. Davis abstained from .
voting.
Mr. Larry Powell mentioned at this time that Mr. Herbert Fisher,
who was to appear before the Board at ~0:00, withdrew his complaint.
The Board of Equalization and Review recessed for a break.
The Board of Equalization and Review reconvened at ~0:45.
Mr. Harold Greene.appeared before the Board representing
Triangle Lane & Investments. Mr. Zarry Powell stated that Mr.
Greene was presenting a complaint on the Carolina Apartments, and
again, this property is similar to the downtown property which
has been reviewed having the ~96~ appraised value. In ~96~ it
was appraised with other comparables. Mr. Douglas Powell asked
Mr. Zarry Powell if he would explain to Mr. Greene the Statutes
on the ~967 appraisals. Mr. Powell stated that the law 5tates
that this office is to appraise at eve~y 8 years, unless there
has been depreciation in the excess of $~00 this office cannot
touch it between the revaluations, the next revaluation will be
in ~g75 at which time they will arrive at a schedule compared to
what the property is selling for in ~g~5. The schedule that
established this value on Carolina Apartments was in ~967. Mr.
Greene stated that he did not bother to complain in ~96~, but
now the Apartments are just barely breaking even. He stated that
they rent to older people and the expense factor is increasing.
Mr. Greene stated that they were paying approximately $3,000
per year in taxes. Mr. Greene stated that the tenants only stay
in Carolina Apartments until there is an opening in Solomon Tower.s;
and then move there. Carolina Apartments rent for $60.OO.per month,
with Solomon Towers renting for $29.00 per month. Mr, Douglas
Powell stated that unless there is some severe deterioation, the
Board's hands are tied, under the statutes there is no bases to
change the valuation. Mr. Larry Powell stated that there was
30'/ functional depreciation given in ~96~ and 45% physical de-
preciation. Mr. Davis asked that even with ~5% depreciation, the
value is still $~6~,940. Mr. Powell stated,that the land value
and the building value was combined in this valuation. The building
alone is $~38,~20. Mr. Douglas Powell moved that the Tax Admini-
strator's recommendation be accepted. Mr. Davis seconded the
motion. Motion carried unanimously.
At this time, Mr. Larry Powell brought to the Chairman's atten-
tion that a motion was needed for item one on the agenda, the Murchison
Building, cancerning the building value. A motion was made on the
penalty, but on the building. Mr. Douglas Powell motioned that there
be no change on the building and land value. Mrs: Wright seconded
the motion. Motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Larry Powell presented Mr. Guyton's complaint. Mr. Powell
stated that Mr. Guyton's property is' located at the corner of Castle
and 5th Streets, the Winn-Dixie Store. According to Mr. Powell, Mr.
Guyton has stated that it was hard to~keep Winn-Dixie in here and he
would like to see a break in the tax, due to the fact that he cannot
increase his rent. Mr. Guyton stated, at this time, that i£ Winn-
Dixie moves from this location, he could not do anything with this
property and would have to tear the buiiding down if they move out.
Mr. Douglas Powell moved that in view of the Statutes, they have
no alternativeabut to retain the value as is. Mrs. Wright seconded
the motion. Unanimously carried.•
Mr. Alton Zennon and Mr. Elliott Hoffman appeared before the
Board to present a complaint for Timmie Motor Inn. Mr. Lennon pre-
sented a brief history on the land now belonging to Timmie Motor Inn.
He stated that the Urban Renewal Commission reappraised this land in
~966 at $200,000 for market purposes. In ~96~ the valuation for tax
purposes was raised to $380,000. Mr. Vaughan read Mr. Powell's recom-
mendationithat there be a 40?/ reduction on the land reducin$ from $634,440
to $380,660. Mr. Lennon stated that Timmie Inn was a convention center,
40°~
MINUTES OF PIEETING, MAY 2'I, ~973 - 9:0o a.M. (CONTINi7ED)
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: BOARD OF EQUALIZATION AND REVIEW (CONTINUED)
Minutes (Continued)
not located on Interstate 85 or 95, not on 74 or '76 and not on 'I'7.
He further stated that over 95% of its' total business is related
to conventions, it is not a resort motel. It's not a commercial
motel, because it's not located where one can be. One of the
questions raised, Mr. Lennon stated, was concerning the £rontage.
The only time the parking area is needed is when there is a con-
vention. Mr. Vaughan asked Nr. Lennon exactly what was expected
beyond Mr. Powell's recommendation. Mr. Lennon asked what other
building, single structure, in the City of Wilmington, is appraised
at 2~Z million dollars, he stated that he did not lrnow of any other
in the City and only a few in the County. Mr. Davis asked Mr.
Powell why the land value in '1970 was $'190,000 and then in '197~
it wentt to $380,000. Mr. Powell stated that was when the County
went to '100'/o ratio. In 19'71 the building was completed and the
full value of $380,660, bringing it in line with other comparables.
Where the increase came in, was that this property was one of those
that was labeled DC, excessive frontage. Mr. Powell stated that
all was removed. Mr. Powell stated that they would recommend that
the 40% go back to be allowed for the excessive frontage, as Mr.
Lennon has pointed out they do not need that frontage for a normal
operation type business. Mrs. Wright moved to accept Mr. Powell's
recommendation on the land value. Mr. Peter Davis seconded. Motion
carried unanimously.
Mr. Hall asked to be excused at 'I0:45 for another meeting.
This was granted by the Board.
Mr. Wallace Murchison and Mr. Robert Little presented a complaint
regarding property in the name of Trustees of J. B. Sidbury. Mr.
Murchison stated that he was appearing on behalf of the Trustees under
the Will of J. Buren Sidbury, who are the owners of property described
as 76 acres I,akeside. Mr. Murchison presented each of the Board
members with a letter to the Board from himself, dated April 'I'I, ~973,
regarding their complaint. Mr. Murchison stated that he would like
to read the letter and comment as he went along. A copy of this
letter will be attached to these minutes. Mr. Murchison brought
out that the Von Olsen Firm had calculated the acreage in I,akeside
Park Subdivision as shown on the original '19'I'I map and a more recent
map made by this firm in ~954. A letter from the Von Olsen Firm
stated that the total acreage is 74.8 acres. Mr, Murchison stated
that this subdivision was set up by Southern Realty and Development
Company and is located betr~een now what is the Carolina Beach Road,
Greenfield Lake and Silver Stream Branch. There is something over
560 lots layed out on the '19'I'1 map. Southern Realty and Development
mortgaged the entire tract as 76 acres to Kirby Sidbury, they then
sold a number of lots but a number of these lots were not released
from this mort~age, so when the mortgage was foreclosed that wiped
out the title of the people who thought that they had title to the
lots. Mr. Vaughan asked if the entire subdivision was wiped out by
the foreclosure. Mr. Murchison stated that in part it was; however,
there were certain lots that had been released from the mortgage that
were not wiped out. Mr. Vau~han asked for an explanation to the state-
ment in Mr. Murchison's letter where as the Trustees claim title to
the land by virtue of a deed, he also questioned when the trustees
claim title to the tract if that includes the lots. Mr. Murchison
stated that their present position is that by virtue of the deed
which reads: The Montgomery Property '76 Acres in Masonboro Township,
described in a d~sed from Sidbury to Sidbury known as the Old Lakeside
Subdivision, plus the possession of this property known as the Skyline
Drive-In Theater, and even the pieces of property that were excluded
from the original foreclosure; however, Mr. Murchison further stated
that they admit that some of these lots owners are claiming title
also. Mr. Murchison at this time read a portion of Von Olsen's
letter and stated that the purpose of the calculation was gotten
because Mr. Blake or someone felt that maybe the '76 acres on the tax
listing was supposed to excluse some of the lots, it does not he
, stated, it includes the whole works. Mr. Murchison stated that they
had reviewed the tax records and attached a copy of the abstract book
and the tax value written in. This shows a large number of lots listed
at a total of $2'1,350, it also shows the ~6 acres listed at the pro-
posed valuation of $'I'19,640. Mr. Murchison stated that they photo-
copied the tax book which said at the top Zakeside Park and it listed
lots by number with peoples' names and the tax value. He stated that
they had added all of those lots and that there are some 500 and
the valuation by lots is $2'1,350. At the same time and on the same
page it stated 76 Acres Dr. J. B. siabury ~~~9,640. Mr. Murchison
stated that incidentally that figure was $88,000 and some dollars
and that is the change that is proposed they are objecting to. Mr.
Vau$han asked Mr. Murchison if he was saying that by adding up this
large number of lots listed in there at $2'1,350 that you have developed
the fact that there is duplicate taxation. Mr. Murchison replied, exactly.
Mr. Uaughan also asked Mr. Murchison if he was saying that the $'P9,000
is a figure resulting from the Elimination of the developer's considera-
tion. Mr. Murchison stated, correct. Mr. Davis asked Mr. Murchison
if they were claiming the 500 lots and the ~6 acres. Mr. Murchison
stated that they were claiming those but will admit that some of the
lot owners are also claiming lots. Mr. Murchison stated that there
are no home owners in here, this was a paper subdivision that never
got off the ground. Mr. Vaughan~.asked how many lots were included in
the valuationof $2'1,350. Mr. Murchison stated they had not actually
counted. He further stated that since most of the lots were valued
at $'100, that you could get a very close estimate of 2'13 lots. Mr.
~~~
MINiTTES OF MEETING, MAY 2~, ~973 - 9~00 A.M. (CONTINUED)
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: BOARD OF EQUALIZATION AND REVIEW (CONTINUED)
Minutes (Continued)
Murchison stated that on the card in the Tax Office showing the ']6
acres that a memorandum on this card indicated that various lots were
double listed. It also stated that 76 acres include all lots unsold
in Lakeside Park Subdivision. Mr. Murchison stated that it should
show that it should show that a11 lots are double listed and that the
']6 acres includes all lots in the subdivision.. Mr. Murchison stated
that it was impossible to tax the same land as lots under one hand
and also as acreage on the other and there should be a reduction
in the tax values of at least the amount of $2'1,350. He stated
that their claim was based upon duplication. Mr. Murchison further
stated that the Trustees object to the increase from $88,630 to
$~~9,640 on the grounds that no statutory authority exists for
changing this value in any year other than a full reassessment year.
The tax card shows that the 30'~ discount of $3'I,0'10 was used.to de-
termine the actual value of the land, this is permissible and lawful
and may not be changed accept under a complete revaluation. Mr.
Murchison stated that he felt that since there was certainly a clear
indication of double listing that the valuation of $2'1,350 has to
be taken off of the value, if it were to be taken off of the '76
acres valuation that would be satisfactory. Mr. Vaughan asked
what other request Mr. Murchison had. Mr. Murchison stated that
he would request to leave the '76 acres, less approximated 20 acres,
at the $88,630 instead of raising to $'I'19,640. Mr. Vaughan stated
that since this problem was so complex, that perhaps the Tax Office
would wish additional time. Mr. Powell stated that in order to make
a proposal that he would like to request that Mr. Murchison furnish
a map showing the lots that haue been sold, which he stated he has
and also an up-to-date map showing that there is only '74.'7 acres in
the whole tract. Mr. Powell stated that they would like to present
this case again before the Board at their meeting on April '16, ~973•
Mr. Vaughan stated that they could present after the Board of County
Commissioners' Meeting on April '16th. Mr. Shugard of the State
Board of Assessments direct to PTr. Murchison that developer's dis-
count had been ruled by their Board that they are illegal and that
they can be chan~ed be£ore any Board, in any year. After Mr. Shugart
discussed this case, Mr. Vaughan informed Mr. Murchison that this
case would be heard and a decision made at the closing meeting.
Mr. Fred Crouch presented a complaint for property l~own as
Crouch Clinic at '1002 Grace Street. Mr.. Powell presented his recom-
mendation on this property. He stated that the design of the building
would make it almost impossible to convert it into some other use.
He further stated that the '19~2 Board of Equalization & Review made
some changes in this particular area of the County and allowed most
all of them a 40'~ reduction functional depreciation. Therefore, he
stated that he recommended that the Crouch property be allowed to
receive 40'~ functional depreciation and design depreciation. Mr.
Vaughan read the reduction to Mr. Crouch, which stated the building
value be reduced from $59,620 to ~35,'7'70, with the total valuation
of land and building at $42,530. Mr. Crouch stated that he desired
possibly a greater reduction than 40'~, if possible. Mr. Douglas Powell
informed Mr. Crouch that reduction of the land value could not be
changed until the new revaluation occurred. Mr. Douglas Powell motion-
ed to accept Mr. Powell's recommendation. Mrs. Wright seconded the
motion. Motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Wiley F. Edwards presented his complaint on three lots
that he owns in Devon Park. Mr. Powell commented on this property
and advised of his recommendation, which was to reduce all of Mr.
Edward's lots by '15% since that there is no excess to the lots;
a bridge would have to built in order to obtain excess. The lots
are also ZOW and taper off into the branch; therefore, he recom-~
mends an additional reduction of 35% due to topo. Mr. Douglas
Powell asked ~r. Edwards if he was satisfied with this recommen-
dation. Mr. Edwards indicated that he was satisfied with this
recommendation. Nr. Douglas P.owellLmotioned~_to accept the Tax
Administrator's recommendation. Mr. Davis seconded the motion.
Unanimously carried.
Mr. Vaughan stated that on the Hinton Property, that Mr. Hinton
is satisfied with Mr. Powell's recommendations and if someone would
care to make a motion this case could be closed. Mr..Powell's
recommendations are on the attached copy of the agenda. Mr. Douglas
Powell motioned to accept Mr. Powell's recommendation. Mr. Peter
Davis seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously.
The Board recessed at '12:30 for lunch break.
The Board reconvened at '1:05.
Mr. Powell presented I,umina Corporation. He asked the Board if
they would want him to complete the presentation or since that the
recommendations are on the agenda if they would want to.ask ques-
tions. Mr. Powell recommends that the I,umina Corporation's building
value be reduced from $'19,0'10 due to a building permit for demolish-
ment being obtained prior to January 'I, ~973. This reduction would
reduce the total valuation to $4'I,95o. Mrs. Wright motioned that the
Tax Administrator's recommendation be accepted.. Mr. Douglas Powell
seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously.
4Q4
MINUTES OF MEETING, MAY 2'i, ~973 - 9~00 A.r. (CONTINUED)
APYROVAL OF MINUTES: BOARD OF EQUALIZATION AND REVIEW (CONTINUED)
Minutes (Continued) -
Mr. Powell next presented property belonging to Mrs. Mabel
Ow.ens. Mrs. Wright asked Mr. Powell what the complaint was. Mr.
Powell stated that the neighborhood was her complaint; however,
Mrs. Owens built a real nice home in this area in '19~0 and of
course, the other homes in this area o£ '10'13 South '12th Street
are not as nice. Mr. Powell recommended no change. Mr. Douglas
Powell moved that Nr. Powell's recommendation be accepted. Mr.
Uaughan seconded the motion, Mot'ion carried unanimously.
Mr. Larry Powell's recommendation on Mr. R. J. Bowman's pro-
perty of reducing from $9~0 to ~6'10, due to topo was presented.
Mr. Peter Davis motioned to accept this recommendation. Mr. Douglas
Powell seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously.
Property complaint submitted by Mrs. Vennie Davis was reviewed.
Mr. Powell's recommendation was to reduce the building value from
$3,230 to $320 due to building permit for demolishing was issued
prior to January 'I, ~973• Mrs. Wright motioned to accept Mr.
Powell's recommendation~. Mr. Davis seconded. Motion carried
unanimously.
Mr. Powell's recommendation on Suggs & Harrelson Construc-
tion Company was that lots 38 through 6'7 Arrowhead Subdivision
be put back into acreage £or '19'73 as the roads have not been cut
in this subdivision. Fifteen acres to go back to $250 per acre
for a total amount of $3,750, and that.Lot '74, which is the well
site be reduced £rom $4,'I20 to $2,680, which is a 35% deduction
since that the lot is irregular and the use. Mr. Peter Davis
motioned to accept Mr. Powell's recommendation. Mr. Douglas
Powell seconded. Motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Larry Powell stated that Mr.
on Lot 5, Block '14 Carolina~Beach was
than he purchased it for. Mr. Powell
of $'10,'150 not be changed. Mr. Peter
recommendation. Mr. Douglas Powell s
mously.
William T. Currin's complaint
that the tax valuation was more
recommended that the valuation
Davis motioned to accept this
:conded. Motion carried unani-.
Mr. Powell presented a complaint on S. & G. Corporation; their
complaint is that the property is low. Mr. Powell's recommendation
is that the property receive a 20'~ reduction due to topo, reducing
the valuation from $8,840 to $'7,0'70. Mr. Dou~las Powell motioned
to accept Mr. Powell's recommendation. Mrs. Wright seconded the
motion. Unanimously carried.
Mr. Larry Powell stated that the case of Wilmington Merchants
Downtown Parking Compar~y was referred from the April 3rd Meetin~ in
order for the City Attorney to attempt to find out who the improve-
ments actually belonged to. According `to Mr. Powell the lease
states that the improvements belong to the City of Wilmington;
therefore, his recommendation is that the Wilmington Merchants
Downtown Parking Company be relieved of the improvements and the
City of Wilmington be charged. The total valuation of the improve-
ments are $'7,0'70. Mr. Douglas Powell moved to accept Mr. Powell's
recommendation. Mr. Peter Davis seconded. Motion carried unanimously.
P1r. Powell presented property belonging to Mr. J. M. Hall, Jr.
The first piece of property Mr. Powell presented was located at 40']
Castle Street, with a present building valuation of $3,640. He
recommended that the building valuation be reduced to only $364
due to a building permit demolishment being issued prior to
January 'I, ~9~3. This was Mr. Hall's complaint, that the building
valuation should be reduced to onl~ '10'/o since the permit was issued
before January 'I, ~g73. Mr. Douglas Powell motioned that Mr.
Powell's recommendation be accepted.. Mrs. Wri~ht seconded the motion.
Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Powell next presented property in
the name of Inez D. Vanderburg, which Mr. Hall bought. This pro-
perty has the same situation as 40'7 Castle Street. The property
at 409 Castle Street has a present buil ding value of $2,~40.
Mr. Powell recommends that the valuation be reduced to $274.
Property at 4'I'I Castle Street has a present:abuilding valuation of
$2,4'70. Mr. Powell recommended that this valuation be reduced to
$247. Both of these pieces of property had building permits
issued for demolishment prior to January 'I, ~973• Mrs. Wright
moved that the Tax Administrator's recommendation be accepted.
Mr. Davis seconded the motion. Unanimously carried.
The property that Mr. Powell presented next was parcels of
land that carried discounts which were labeled "DC", "Location",
etc. Attached to these minutes is a copy o£ all of this property.
Mr. Powell presented Shell Island Corporation. This property,
has been allowed topo, excessive frontage, developer's consideration
and location 50'~. Mr. Powell's recommendation is to.reduce the
'I~'73 valuation for Tract ~/4 Shell Island from $20,4'10 to ~~6,330.
Tract #3 Shell Island from ~3~,550 to $24,440. Tract #2 Shell
Island from $'I'16,220 to $93,020 and Division of Tracts 5& 6
from $7,080 to $5,660. This is allowing 20'~ topo on all tracts
instead of the 50'/ they have been receiving. Mr. Douglas Powell
moved that the Tax Administrator's recommendation be accepted.
Mr. Davis seconded. Motion carried unanimously.
~~~
MINLTTES OF MEETING, MAY 2'I~ ~973 - 9~00 A.M. (CONTINUED)
APPROVAL OF I~iINUTES: BOARD OF EQ,UAI,IZATION AND REVIEW (CONTINUED)
Minutes (Continued)'
Mr. Powell presented property belonging to Wilmington Beach In-
vestment Company. He stated that when Southern Appraisal Compar~y
appraised this property, they appraised strictly on an acreage
basis and then turned around and gave them a 5~o reduction £or
excess and developer's consideration. This property is described
as, 50 Acres Blk. 22-50 and 53.53 Acres Blk. 5~-65. The pre-
sent valuation on the 50 Acres is $']4,230 and 53.53 is valued
at ~35,830. Mr. Powell recommends no change in these valuations.
Mr. Douglas Powell moved that the Tax Department's recommendation
be accepted. Mr. Davis seconded the motion. Unanimously carried.
Mr. Powell presented property owneds:by Mr. Bruce B. Cameron.
He stated that Mr. Cameron had been allowed a 50"/o discount for
developer's consideration and excess on property described as:
26'].45 Acres Watson Branch, 60 Acres Watson Branch and 'I,359•~4
Acres River Road. Mr. Powell recommends a 20'~ topo reduction
be given on the 26'7.45 Acres Watson Branch, on the second piece
of property; 60 Acres a reduction of 3~/o for excess and on the
~,359 Acres a reduction of 20'~o for topo and excess. Mr. Douglas
Powell moved to accept Mr. Powell's recommendation. Mr. Davis
seconded. ~otion carried unanimously.
Mr. Powell presented Shandy Point Development Company. He
stated that they had been allowed a 50'~ reduction for DC and un-
paved streets. Mr. Powell recommends a'15% reduction for the
unpaved streets on I,ots 29, 30 & 3'I Shandy Point. Mr. Douglas
Powell moved to accept this recommendation. Mrs. Wright seconded
the motion. Motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Powell stated that Mr. J. H. Hobb's property had been
allowed a combination of 50% topo and DC. All the lots, which
are 'i thru '] Capri Estates, are on unpaved streets; therefore,
Mr. Powell stated that his recommendation would be a'15% re-
duction due to unpaved streets and 20% due to location, reducing
all of the lots from ~'1,050 each to $']'10 each. Mr. Douglas
Powell moved to accept Mr. Powell's recommendation. Mrs. Wright
seconded. Motion carried 4 to 0.
Mr. Larry Powell presented Arlene W. ~Terzaal's property, lots
50 thru 53 Willow Woods ~`xtension, which had 50'~ DC and topo. Mr.
Powell recommends that a 50'~ topo reduction be given. Mr. Douglas
Powell motioned to accept Mr. Powell's recommendation. Mr, Peter
Davis seconded. Unanimously carried.
Mr. Powell presented property belonging to Mr. Richard Shew.
On Mr. Shew's property described as I,ot 'I & Tracts A, B, C, & E,
Mr. Powell recommends that a 65% topo reduction be allowed instead
of the previous 65% topo and DC, this lot is also irregular. On
Zots '7, 8, 9, ~0, '13 and '14 Sherwood Forest, there had previously
been a 50'~ topo and DC. Mr. Powell's recommendation on these
lots is that they should be retained at their full value. Mr.
Davis moved to accept Mr. Powell's recommendation. Mr. Douglas
Powell seconded. Motion carried 4 to 0.
Mr. Powell presented Mr. John L. Browning's propert~ Mr. Powell
stated that all of the lots had been allowed a DC of 35/, he stated
they had actually gone out and reviewed everyone of the lots and
some of them he would recommend a topo of 35%, ~me with no change
because some have been filled in and the topo recommendation varied
on the condition of the lot. Mr. Po~aell's recommendations are
noted on the attached agenda. Mr. Peter Davis moved to accept
Mr. Powell's recommendation. Nr. Douglas Powell seconded. Notion
carried 4 to 0. ~
Mr. Powell presented Robert Hill Construction Company's pro-
perty in Brandywine. These lots are presently being built on and
previously had a developer's consideration o£ 35%. Mr. Powell
recommends that no con sideration be allowed or topo. Mr. Douglas
Powell moved to accept Mr. Powell's recommendation. Mrs. Wright
seconded the motion. Motion carried 4 to-0.
New Hanover Development Company had been allowed a 55% developer's
consideration and a CL, which has been determined as cut-over-land.
Mr. Powell stated that he would recommend a'15% reduction for no
paving and 'ICP/ for location. Mr. Douglas Powell moved to accept
Mr. Powell's recommendation. Nr. Davis seconded. Motion carried
4 to 0.
Mr. Alex M. Trask's property of '].25 Acres Blythe had been
allowed 35% DC and topo, presently valued at $2,900. Mr. Powell
recommends no change in the valuation. Mrs. Wrig~it moved to
accept Mr. Powell's recommendation. Mr. Douglas Powell seconded.
Motion carried 4 to 0.
Resort Development Company had been allowed 65% topo and DC
on 26.3 Acres Marsh and Wasteland, located at Northern End of Carolina
Beach, back of the pier. Presently valued at $26,300, Mr. Powell's
recommendation is to reduce to #~3,~50 due to topo, allowing 50%.
Mr. Peter Davis motioned to accept Mr. Powell's recommendation.
Mr. Douglas Powell seconded. Motion carried 4 to 0.
MINUTFS OF MEETING, MAY 2'I, ~9~3 - 9:0o a.M. (CONTINUED)"
APPROVAL OF MINiTTES: BOARD OF E6UALIZATION AND REVIEW (CONTINUED)
Minutes (Continued)
Mr. Daniel W. Trask's property, Lot #33, Sec. 'I, Weaver Acres
had been allowed 55% DC and CL. Mr. Powell recommends that Mr.
Trask not receive any consideration. Mr. Douglas Powell moved to
accept the Tax Administrator's recommendation. Mrs. Wright second-
ed the motion. Motion carried 4 to 0.
Mr. J. H. Fussell's property 'I.'I6 Acres Harriss I, had been
allowed 35% topo and DC and on 34.44 Acres Harriss I, he had been
allowed 35% DC and topo. Mr. Powell recommends that no considera-
tion be given on either tract. Mr. Douglas Powell motioned to
accept Mr. Powell's recommendation. Mr. Vaughan:seconded the motion.
Motion carried 4 to 0.
Drug Warehouse Compar~y had been allowed 35% DC and excessive;
Mr. Powell recommends '10% topo on the 5•59 Acres on Oleander Drive.
Mr. Douglas Powell moved to accept the Tax Administrator's recommen-
dation. Mr. Vaughan seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously.
Nr. Wiley F. Edwards had been allowed 80'~ DC and topo on Lot
#'14 Devon Park. Mr. Powell recommends Mr. Edwards be allowed 35%
topo. Mr. Davis moved to accept the recommendation of the Tax
Department. Mr. Douglas Powell seconded. Motion carried 4 to 0.
Stanley N. Patelas Property Lot 'I Cavalier Woods has been
allowed 65/ DC and topo. Mr. Powell recommends 20'~ for topo and
irregular lot be allowed. Mr. Davis moved to accept the recommen-
dation of the Tax Administrator. Mr. Douglas Powell seconded.
Motion carried unanimously.
Mr. J. W. Reaves had been allowed DC and location in the amount
of 65%. Mr. Powell recommends that no discount or consideration be
allowed. Mr. Douglas Powell motioned to accept :this recommendation.
Mr. Peter Davis seconded. Motion carried unanimously.
Noremac Realty Corporation property described as all Tract "A"
Medical Art Center 4.95 Acres had been allowed a 35% excess and DC.
Mr. Powell recommends a 20% consideration be allowed for location.
Mr. Douglas Powell moved to accept Mr,. Powell's recommendation. Mr.
Vaughan seconded. Motion carried unanimously.
Armstrong Developer's, Inc. had been allowed 50'~ DC and excessive
on 32 Acres South Wilmington Heights. Mr. Powell recommends that they
receive no consideration. Mr. Douglas Powell asked wl~,y if there was
an excess in '1~67 and a DC, why shouldn't the excess still be there
today, unless we are forgetting to look back on it as if it were
'196']. Nr. Davis stated that he was under the impression that all
the acreage was going to go back, that the developer's discount
only applied to lots. He stated that he thought that any acregae
' tract, that the Board had to go with the figure. Mr. Shugart
stated that if you reviewed lots with DC,y_ou:have to do the same
with acreage. Mr. Davis stated that when the values go out to
the people, according to the paper, the way he understood it, the
discounts were being put back on all raw acreage and that is most
likely why that all these people on this list are not here, they
are under the opinion that their property ~oill stay the same as it
was last 9ear and when they get these new figures, they are going
to go through the ceiling, because the Board apparently told them
one thing and did another. Mr. Davis further stated that he
thought the only discounts that were going to be taken off and
left off were where the land was actually developed or where the
acreage was cut up, because that is the onl~ place you could have
a developer's discount. Mr. I,arry Powell stated that developer's
discount had been allowed on acrea~e tracts. Mr. Vaughan asked if
the Board was ready to proceed. Mr. Vaughan motioned to accept
Mr. Powell's recommendation. Mr. Douglas Powell seconded the motion.
Mr. Davis asked to be excused from voting on the acreage cases: He
stated that he just had a different understanding and would just
rather not vote. Mr. Vaughan asked the remaining Board members if
Mr. Davis could be excused from voting. Mrs. Wright stated that
she did not feel that anyone should be excused from voting except
where it's a conflict of their interest. Mr. Davis asked that the
minutes include his statement that he requested the Board to recess
on any acreage tract at the end of this meeting and when the final
notices go out that any discontented taxpayers have a right to appear
before the Board later. Mr. Vaughan suggested to Mr. Davis to make
a motion at the end of the meeting and then it vrill be voted on.
Mr. Vaughan stated that the Board was still on Armstrong Developer's
and he wanted to finish this item. Mrs. 4Jright, Mr. D. Powell and
Mr. Vaughan voted aye. Mr. Davis abstained from voting. Mr.
Vaughan asked if the Board wished to give Mr. Davis permission to '
abstain. Mrs. Wright asked Mr. Davis if he was going to abstain
from all the remaiix~nga~acrea~e? Mr. Davis stated that he would
abstain from all the acreage tracts. Mr. Vaughan asked to recess
the Board until he called the County Attorney to determine
whether or not they had permission to allow Mr. Davis to abstain.
Board recessed at 2:05. Mr. Vau{r,han returned and informed Mr.
Davis that he could abstain. Again, Mr. Vaughan asked for a
vote. Mrs. Wright, Mr. Vaughari and Mr. Powell voted aye. Mr.
Davis abstained.
~~~
MINUTES OF MEETING, MAY 2~, ~973 - 9:0o A.M. (CONTINUED)
APPROVAI, OF MINUTES: BOARD OF EQUALIZATION AND REVIEW (CONTINUED)
Minutes (Continued)
Long Zeaf Homes, Inc. had been allowed DC and excessive in
the amount of 35%. Mr. Powell stated that he would recommend
the 35% be changed to excessive only. Mrs. Wright moved to
accept Mr. Powell's recommendation. Mr. Davis seconded the
motion. Motion carried unanimously.
Cape Fear Enterprises had been allowed DC and excessive in
the amount o£ 35%. Nlr. Powell recommends that a 20'~ discount be
allowed for excessive. The property is on the Carolina Beach
Road, 20 Acre tract across from King's Department Store. Mr.
Douglas Powell moved to accept the Tax Administrator's recommen-
dation. Mrs. Wright seconded the motion. Mr. Davis abstained.
Vote carried 3 to 'I.
R. H. Borkenhagen's property 4.'156 Acres Winter Park Gardens
had been allowed DC and excess '15%. Mr. Powell recommends that it
be allowed no discount. Mr. Douglas Powell moved to accept Mr.
Powell's recommendation. Mrs. Wright seconded the motion.
Motion carried unanimously.
Mrs. W. D. Pugh's property at SW SE of Blk. 55'I had been
allowed excessive and DC in the amount of 35%. Mr. Powell recom-
mends a 35% excessive be allowed. Mr. Peter Davis moved to accept
Mr. Powell's recommendation. Mr. Powell seconded the motion.
Motion carried unanimously.
North Carolina National Bank Trustees, 50 Acres Independence
Blvd. had been allowed 50% excessive, DC and topo. Mr. Powell
recommends_30'/o excessive. Mr. Douglas Powe11 moved to accept
the Tax Administrator's recommendation. Mrs. Wright seconded.
Mr. Powell, Mrs. Wright and Mr. Vaughan voted aye. Mr. Davis
abstained. Motion carried 3 to 0, with an abstention.
Metropolitan Developer's, Inc, had been allowed 49'~ excess
and DC. Mr. Powell recommends that 30'~ excess be allowed to the
acreage of 28.6~ Acres Oleander Drive, but no discount allowed
for the road £rontage of this property. Mr. Douglas Powell moved
to accept the recommendation. Mrs. Wright seconded the motion.
Mr. Davis abstained., Motion carried 3 to 0, orith one abstention.
Mr. Louis W. Cameron 50 Acres Independence Blvd. 'I/5 interest,
the previous case with North Carolina National Bank held the 4/5
interest. Mr. Powell's recommendation is the same on this pro-
perty as on North Carolina National Bank's, allowing a 30'~ for
excessive. Mrs. Wright moved to accept this recommendation.
Mr. Vaughan seconded. Mrs. Wright, Mr. Powell and Mr. Vaughan
voted aye. Mr. Davis abstained. Mr. Vau~han stated that there
was one abstention.
Business Properties, Inc.
allowed 35% for DC and excess.
duction be given. The propertv
extension of Sunnyvale Dr. Mr.
Tax Administrator's recommendat
Mr. Powell, Mrs. Wright and Mr.
stained.
6'1.2'] Acres Cumber Tract had been
Mr. Powell recommends that no re-
is located on the Ri'ver Road, an
Douglas Powell moved to accept the
ion. Mrs. Wright seconded the motion.
Vau~han voted aye. Mr. Davis ab-
Agnes McRae Morton '153.4'J Acres Tract 2 Noble and Klein had
been allowed 35% for DC and excessive. Mr. Powell recommended that
excessive in the amount of 35% be allowed on the rear land only.
Mr. Douglas Powell moved to accept this recommendation. Mrs.
Wright seconded the motion. Mrs. Wright, Mr. Vaughan and Mr.
Powell voted aye. Mr. Davis abstained.
Babcock & Wilcox '14'7.02 Acres River Road had been receiving
35% DC and excessive. Mr. Powell recommends that they receive no
discount. Mrs. Wright moved to accept the Tax Administrator's
recommendation. Mr. Powell seconded the motion. Mr. Davis abstained.
Mr. Powell, Mrs. Wright and Mr. Vaughan voted aye. One abstention.
~:zW. Newkirk '769.92 Acres Harris and Martin had been allowed
65% DC and excessive. Mr. Powell recommended that no percentage
discount be allowed. Mr. Vaughan made the motion to accept this
recommendation. Mr. Douglas Powell seconded the motion. Mrs.
Wright, Mr. Powell and Mr. Vau~han voted aye. Mr. Davis abstained.
Suggs and Harrelson Construction Company, 2'70 Acres Silver
Lake had been allowed topo, DC and excessive in the amount of 35%-
Mr. Powell recommends that no discount be allowed. Mr. Vaughan
motioned to accept this recommendation. Mr. Douglas Powell seconded.
Mrs. Wright, Mr. Powell and Mr. Vaughan voted aye. Mr. Davis abstained.
Mr. Vaughan asked Mr. Shugart if the Board could recess in order
to have the additional hearing on the Murchison Building and Timmie
Hilton? Mr. Shugart stated that the Board could be recessed and
then reconvene and discuss anything that is hanging, but not any
new business. Mr. Powell stated that also the Graham property
and Lakeside property and also at the April 'IOth meeting the
Debnam property was carried over for additional findings. Mr.
Powell stated that he did have the information for the Debnam
property now. Mrs. Wright suggested to present this case now.
~~~~
MIN[JTES OF MEETING, MAY 2'I, ~973 - 9~00 A.M. (CONTINUED)
APPROVAL OF MINtJTES: BOARD OF EQ,UAI,IZATION AND REVIEW (CONTINUED)
Minutes (Continued)
Mr. Powell asked Mr. Blake to present this case to the Board. Mr.
Blake stated that Mr. Debnam's complaint was center.ed around the
parking deck. He stated that it had been compared with the build-
ing next door. The parking deck contract was let out on February
8, ~966. The City made their £irst payment on June 1, '1966, and
made final payment on June 8, '1968, but the parking deck was
presumably finished sometime in '196']. Mr. Blake stated that he
felt that the Debnam property was taken into consideration. In
comparing with the building next door, which-is a 2 story and
basement, the appraisal company allowed 5CP/o ph~sical deprecia-
tion and 25% functional depreciation; the 25% functional de-
preciation is presumably to make up for the basement and the
second floor. Mr. Debnam has only a'I story and basement, but
in checking his card this building has 55% physical depreciation
and 20'~ functional depreciation, so the functional depreciation
was apparently placed there due to the ramp and to his basement
not being rented. Mrs. Wright motioned that the Debnam pro-
perty remain at the pxesent valuation. Mr. Vaughan seconded the
motion. Motion carried unanimously.
The Board recessed for the consideration of any other matters
on the agenda that have not been completed. Before the Board re-
cessed Mr. Vaughan asked if any other members of the Board had
any comments.
Mr. Davis stated that there is going to be some misunder-
standing on some o£ these acreage tracts when they get their
notices and what route do these people take? Mrs. Wright stated
that they could go to the State Board. Mr. Vaughan asked Mr.
Davis if he wished to put something in the minutes. Mr. Davis
stated that he felt that there is still a misunderstanding of
the handling o£ discounts on acreage and unfortunately the
people who have these will have to appeal to the State Board.
Mr. Vaughan stated to Mr. Davis that his abstention would bear
out his feelings.
Mr. Vaughan recessed the Board of Equalization and Review
and stated that it would reconvene.for the sole purpose of re-
viewing items; Lakeside Subdivision, Graham Property, Foster
Hill Realty, plus any other matters which were on the agenda
and on which final action was not taken."
"~973
NEW HANOVER COUNTY
BOgRD OF EQUALIZATION & REVIEW
April ~~~ ~973
9:00 MR. JOHN M. TRASK, JR. & MR. DAVIS MAYBAIdB, JR. Agents:
Mr. William T. Miars and Mr. A. Dumay Gorham, Jr. Pro-
perty describecl as: Blk. '190, SE 5 E 6 Pt. 5& EM 6,
Murchison Building. Property presently valued at:
land $'15'1,830 and buildin$ $383,930, for a total of
~535,`760. Mr. Powell's recommendation: No change.
9~~5 BELZ'S SHOES, INC. Agent: Mr. R. B. Bell. Mr. Bell
will present. Late listing penalty of approximately
$62.90. Mr. Powell suggested the penalty not be re-
moved.
9~3o MR• IVAN GEO. SLEEMAN Mr. Sleeman raill present. '1.5
Acres marshland, Federal Point Township, East off St.
Joseph St. Mr. Powell's recommendation: Reduce from
$'7,560 to $'150. Marshland is only priced at ~b100 per
acre.
9;45 EAST WII,MINGTON HEIGHTS APARTMENTS Agent: Dr. H. A.
Eaton. 8.'I Acres +- Princess Place Dr. Present value,
land is $40,500, buildings $855,980, total $896,480.
Mr. Powell;s recommendation: No change.
10:00 MR. HERBERT T. FISF~R Agent: Mr. H. C. Wallace. Mr.
~ Wallace will present. I.ots 3/4/5/6 Woodlawn, Carolina
Beach Road. Hostess Cafeteria. Present valuation is,
land 9b8,480, building $3'1,410, total $39,890. Nir.
Powell's recommendation: No change
10:15 BRRAK
'10:30 TRIANGLE LAND & INVESTMENTS Agent: Mr. Harol:d Greene.
Mr. Greene will present. Blk. '155 E'I/3 of 'I. Carolina
Apartments located at 5th and Market Streets. Property
presently valued at $29,220, building $'138,720, total
valuation of $'16'7,940. Mr. Powell's recommendation:
No change, the property is at fair market value and in
accordance with surrounding;propertg.
4~~
MINUTES OF MEETING, MAY 2~, ~973 - 9:0o n.M. (CONTINUED)
APPROVAI, OF MINUTES: BOARD OF E~UALIZATION AND REVIEW (CONTINUED)
Minutes (Continued)
~0:45 MR. W. W. GUYTON Mr. Guyton wi11 present. Blk. ~~ WE
~, 2, 3 and 4 EM ~, 2, 3. Castle and 5th Streets, Winn
Dixie Store. Land presently valued at $~~,400, building
$69,330, total assessment ~80,~30. Mr. Powell;s recom-
mendation: No change.
~~:00 TIP'll`1E MOTOR INN CORPORATION Agents: Mr. Elliott N.
Hoffman and Mr. Alton Lennon, Sr. All blk. 202 & All
West Park Block ~90, located on North Water Street.
~9~3 Valuation on land, $634,44~0, building $2,53~,970,
total valuation ~3,~66,410. Mr. Powell recommends a
40% reduction on the land only, reducin$ £rom $634,440
to $380,660 due to excessive frontage. The frontage
on the particular parcel is 859.68'. This reduction
would reduce the total valuation to $2,9~2,630.
~~:~5 TRUSTEES U/W OF J. B. SIDBURY Agent: Mr. Robert A.
Little. Mr. Wallace C. Murchison will present. Pro-
perty in guestion includes: ~6 Acres Lakeside and
Lots 5/6, ~9, 2~, 78/7°, 9o/g~ and 4~4/4~5 Lakeside.
Mr. Powell recommends: No change.
'I'1:30 WALTER I,. CROUCH (CROUCH CLINTC) Agent: T'Ir. Fred
Crouch. Mr. Crouch will present. Property described
as: Block 200 NWM 'I, '1002 Grace St. Froperty is
presently valued at, land $6,']6Q buildings $59,620,
total valuation of $66,380. Mr. Powell recommends
a 40% functional or design depreciation reduction
on the building, reducing £rom $59,620 to $35,770•
This would change the total valuation to $42,530.
'12:00 MR. WILEY F. ED41AkDS PYr. Edwards will present. Blk.
0 i.ots '10-A, 'I'I-A and '12-A Devon Park, all located on
Ashely Circle. Lot '10-A presently valued at $'1,560,
lot 'I'I-A valued at $'I,490 and lot '12-A valued at ~'1,750.
Mr. Powell recommends a'15% reduction due to no roads
and 35% topo on all lots. Recommended values would
reflect the followin~ changes on the lots: I~ot '10-A
~860, Lot 'I'i-A $830 and Lot '12-A $9']0.
'12:'15 Mr. Larry Powell will present the £ollowing complaints:
I,UMINA CORPORATION Property described as, Zumina Property,
located on I,umina Avenue. ~9'73 valuation placed on the
propert9 is $40,050 for land, $19,010 for building, total
~59,060. Mr. Powell recommends that building only be re-
duced to $'1,900, due to policy adopted by the Board in
the Meeting of April 3, ~9'73. The building permit to
demolish was issued prior to January 'i, ~973. The re-
duction would change the total valuation to $4'1,950.
N~F2S. MABLE OWENS~ Froperty described as, SW 'I/4 3& NW
'I/4 4('16 &'18), '10'13 South 12th Street. Presently
valued at 9~'16,520, with land at $'1,020 and building at
~~5,540. Mr. Powell recommends no change.
MR. R. J. BOWMAN Property, Lot 9-A Bowman Div. Tract 'I,
Hermitage Blk. 2'I. Presently valued at $9~0. Mr. Powell
recommends a 35%v reduction due to topo. This would re-
duce the•property to ~6'10.
MRS. VENNIE C. DAVIS Property, Block 33 SW y4 3, g~3
South 3rd Street. 'iy'/5 valuation is $4,250, $'1,020 for
land and $3,230 £or building. Mr. Powell recommends that
the building value be reduced to $320 in accordance with
the Board's ruling on April 3, ~9~3, concerning condemned
property. The permit to demolish this house iaas issued
prior to January 'I, ~9~3.
MISS JOSEPHINE HINTON Kure Beach Pro
quested at the April 3rd Meeting that
Blake return and check this property.
are as follows:
PRESENT
PROPERTY VALUE
perty. The Board re-
Mr. Powell and Mr.
Their recommendations
RECOMMENDED VALUE
AND REASON
Blk. 44 Lot 22 Kure Beach $ 820 $ '700 Road not
open '15%
I,ocation
Blk. 42 Lot 20 Kure Beach $ 6'10 $ 490 Topo 2~/
Blk. 42 Lot 2'I Kure Beach $'1 ,230 $'I ,'110 Topo '10'~
Blk. 42 Lot 22 Kure Beach $'1 ,230 $ 980 Topo low 2~/0
Blk. 43 Lot 'i~ Kure Beach ~ 6'10 $ 400 Low Topo 35%
Blk. 43 Lot '18 Kure Beach $ 6'IO $ 400'Low Topo 35%
Blk. 43 Lot '19 Kure Beach $ 6'IO 96 400 Low Topo 35%
Blk. 43 I,ot 20 Kure Beach $ 6'IO $ 400 Low Topo 35%
Blk. 43 Lot 2'I Kure Beach $~ 820 $ 530 Low Topo 35%
Blk. 43 I,ot 22 Bure Beach ~ 820 $ 530 Low Topo 35%
4 ~~~
~INUTES OF MEETING, MAY 2'I, ~973 - 9~.0o A.M. (CONTINiTED)
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: BOAR- OF EQUALIZATION AND F?EV![EW (CONTINUED)
Minutes (Continued)
SUGGS & HARRELSON CONSTRUCTION C0. I,ots 38 through 6'7 Arrowhead Sub-
division. Mr. Yowell recommends that I,ots 38 through 6'7 be put back
in acreage for ~9'73 as this road has not been cut as yet. '15 acres
to go back to $250 per acre £or a total amount of 963,'750. Al~o recom-
mended 'tYiat Lot #74 used as well site be reduced by 35% because of
irregular size and use. This lot was presently valued at $4;;120,
reduction would reduce to $2,680.
MR. WILLIAM T. CURRIN Property, Block '14 Zot 5 Carolina Beach,_;
633 Carolina Beach Ave., North. Presently valued at $'10,'150,
land $2,'700 and building at $~,450. Mr. Powell recommends no
change.
S& G CORPORATION 29.4'7 Acres Pt. Schnibben. ~973 value is
$8,840. Mr. Powell recommends reduction of 20'~ due to topo,
reducing valuation to $'7,0'70.
WILMINGTON MERCHANTS DOWNTOWN PARKING COMPANY Cit,y Parking Lot
at Second & Market Streets. Nr. Powell recommends that the City
be charged for the improvements and the Wilmington Merchants
Downtown Parking Company be relieved of these liabilities. Present
valuation is $'7,0']0.
MR. J. M. HALL, JR. Blk. 90 Pt. W 6 or 40'7 Castle Street. Pre-
sently valued at $4,230, with land assessed at $590 and building
at $3,640. Mr. Powell's recommendation: building be reduced to
$360, as per policy established April 3, ~g73.
INEZ D. VANDERBERG Property described as, Blk. 9o ~ 6 and Blk.
90 Pi 6, or 40y and 4'I'I Castle Street. Present value on 409 Castle
Street is, land $860, building $2,'740, total $3,600. Mr. Powell's
recommendation: Reduce building value to 56270 as per policy estab-
lished on April 3, ~973• present value on 4'i'i Castle Street is, land
$860, bwlding 962,4'70, total valuation $3,330. Mr. Powell's recom-
mendation: Reduce building value to $2'70, as per policy established
on April 3, ~g~3, by the Board of Equalization and Review. Mr.
J. M. Hall, Jr. is the agent for these two parcels of land."
"~973
NEW HANOVER COUNTY
BOARD OF EQUALIZATION AND REIVEW
The following property is that which laas labeled "DC", "I,ocation",
etc., which I referred to in my memo of March 23rd and 2'7th. With
the assistance of Mr. Emmitt C. Shugart, of the State Board of
Assessment and my staff we have reviewed each parcel of land, and
made the £ollowing recommendations. The last contact we have had
with these taxpayers was to inform them we had removed the special
consideration,aid have received no complaints. '19'72 valuation is
shown with special consideration; ~9~3 valuation reflects value
after removal of consideration. Recommended value is after our
field view.
~972 ~973 ~.
SHELL ISLAND CORP.
Tract #~4 Shell Island 'I0,200 20,4'10 'I6,330
Tract #3 Shell Island '15,280 30,550 24,440
Tract #2 Shell Island 46,490 'I'16,220 93,020
Div. of Tracts 5& 6 3,540 '],080 5,660
WIId"IINGTON BEACH INV. C0.
50 Acres Blks. 22 thru 50 3'7,'120 '74,230 ~4,230
Wilmin~ton Beach
53•53 Acres Blks. 5~ - 65 ~7,920 35,83~ 35,83~
Wilmington Beach
MR. BRUCE B. CAMERON
'26~.45 Acres 4latson Branch 53,4g0 '106,980 85,58~
60 Acres Watson Branch 56,']00 'I'13,400 79,38~
~359•~4 Acres River Road 266,200 409,540 330,820
SHANDY POINT DEV. COMPANY
Lot ~3'I Shandy Yoint 2,250 4,5~~ 3,830
Lot #3~ Shandy Point 2,0']0 4,'140 3,520
I,ot #29 Shandy Point ~,75o 3,5~~ 2,98~
J. H. HOBBS
Lot #'I Capri Estates 530 'I,050 `7'IO
Lot #2 Capri Estates 530 'I,050 7'10
Lot #3 Capri Estates 530 'I,050 '7'IO
Lot #/~+ Capri Estates 530 'I,050 7'10
I,ot #5 Capri Estates 530 '1,050 '7'10
Lot #6 Capri Estates 530 'I,050 ']'10
Lot #7 Capri Estates 530 '1,050 '7'10
~~~
MINUTES OF MEETING, MAY 2'I, ~9~3 - 9:0o a.M. (CONTINUED)
APPROVAI, OF MINUTES: BOARD OF EQUALIZATION AND RE'~lIEW (CONTINUED)
Minutes (Continued)
'1972 'I~ ~
ARLENE W. UERZAAL
Lot #50 Willow Woods Ext. 8']0 1,'J40 8'70
Lot #5'I Willow Woods Ext. 880 'I,'J50 880
Lot #52 willow wooas Ext. 880 'I,75o 8ao
Lot #53 Willow Woods Ext. 810 '1,620 8'10
MR. P.ICHARD A. SHE4]
Lot 'I & Tracts A, B, C& E 2,020 5,~'70 2,020
Pt. Lot #'7 Sherwood Forest 660 'I , 3'10 'I , 3'10
Pt. Lot {f 8 Sherwood Forest 'I,0'70 2,'130 2,'130
Pt. Lot # 9 Sherwood Forest 960 '1,9'10 'I,9'IO
Pt. Lot #'10 Sherwood Forest 900 '1,800 '1,800
Pt,. Lot #'13 Sherwood Forest 9'10 ~,820 'I,820
Pt. Lot #'14 Sherwood Forest 9~0 '1,820 '1,820
MR. JOHN Z. BROWNING
Lot # 2 Brandywine Sec. 'I 850 '1,300 '1,300
Lot #'I'i Brandywine Sec. 'I 840 '1,290 840
Lot #12 Brandywine Sec. 'I 840 '1,290 840
Lot #'13 Brandywine Sec. 'I '7'70 'I , 340 'I ,'I80
Lot #14 Brandywine Sec: 'I 480 'I,'140 '740
Lot #'15 Brandywine Sec. 'I 5'10 '1,220 'I,040
Lot #'16 Brandywine Sec. 'I 540 '1;280:~ 'I,280
Lot #'17 Brandywine Sec. 'I 400 940 940
Lot #32 Brandywine Sec. 'i 950 '1,460 ']30
Lot #38 Brandywine Sec. 'I 82q 'I,260 'I,'130
Zot #/4'7 Brandywine Sec. 'I 500 'I,'190 'I,0~0
Lot #48 Brandywine Sec. 'I 440 '1,030 880
Lot #49 Brandywine Sec. 'I 480 'I,'120 'I;'120
Lot #54' Brandywine Sec. 'I 9'10 '1,530 '1,300
Lot #5° Brandyvrine Sec. 'I . 790 'I , 220 'I , 220
Lot ~#70 Brandywine Sec. 'I ']'10 'I,090 '1,090
I,ot #'7'I Brandywine Sec. 'I 680 'I,040 '780
Well Site 830 'I,960 '1,270
ROBERT HILL CONSTRUCTION C0.
Lot ~'18 Brandywine Sec. 'I 770 1,'180 'I,'180
Lot ~~9 Brandywine Sec. 'I 840 'I,240 '1,240
I,ot #20 Brandywine Sec. 'I '760 '1,170 'I,'1~0
Lot #2'I Brandywine Sec. 'i ']60 '1,1'70 'I,'1~0
I,ot #22 Brandywine Sec. 'I 720 'I,'I'10 'I,'I'10
Lot #23 Brandywine Sec. 'I 720 'I,'I'10 'I,'I'10
I,ot #50 Brandywine Sec. 'i '760 'I,'170 'I,'170
Lot #5'I Brandywine Sec. 'I 890 1,370 '1,3~0
NEW HANOVER DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
Lot #'I Greenview Ranches 290 640 490
Lot # 2 Greenview Ranches 29o 640 490
Lot # 3 Greenview Ranches 290 640 490
I,ot # 4 Greenview Ranches 290 640 490
Lot # 4 Greenview Ranches 290 640 490
Lot # 6 Greenview Ranches 290 640 490
Lct # 7 Greenview Ranches 360 800 6'10
Lot #2'I Greenview Ranches 290 640 460
Lot #22 Greenview Ranches 290 640 460
I,ot #30 Greenview Ranches 320 700 530
Lot #32 Greenview Ranches 290 640 490
Lot #33 Greenview Ranches 290 640 4g0
Lot #34 Greenview Ranches 290 640 490
Lot #35 Greenview Ranches 290 640 490
Lot ~36 Greenview Ranches 290 640 490
Lot #52 Greenview Ranches 320 900 900
I,ot ~53 Greenview Ranches 'I']0 'I ,'140 'I ,'140
Lot #54 Greenview Ranches '140 9'10 9'10
MR. ALEX M. TRASK
~~.25 Acres Blythe '1,900 2,900 2,900
RESORT DEVELOPMENT C0.
26.3 Acres Marsh & Wasteland 9,2~0 26,300 '13,'150
DANIEL W. TRASK
Lot #33, sec. 'I Weaver Acres 5~0 '1,300 '1,300
J. H. FUSSELL1 JR.
'I.'16 Acres Harriss I 2,850 4,380 4,380
34.44 Acres Harriss I '18,99~ 29,2~0 29,2'10
DRUG WAREEIOUSE COMPANY
y.5y Acres Oleander Dr. 88,890 'i'15,640 'I08,000
WILEY F. EDWARDS
Blk. Y Lot 'i4 Devon Park 580 2,880 'I,870
STANLEY N. PATELAS
Blk. 'I i,ot 'I ~avalier Woods '1,290 3,690 2,950
.
J. W. REAVES
~Blk. 2 Lot 2~ Victoria Village '710 2,020 ' 2,020
MINUT~ OF MEETING, MAY 2`I, 1973 - 9~00 A.M. (CONTINUED)
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: BOARD OF E9UAZIZATION AND REVIEW (CONTINUED)
Minutes (Continued)
'1972 ~ ~
~ NOREMAC REALTY CORPORATION
All Tract "A'~ Medical Art Center
4.95 Acres 36,020 55,420 44,340
ARMSTRONG DEVELOPER"'S. IIdC.
32 Acres S. Wilm. Hgts. 25,000 50,000 50,000
LONG LEAF HOMES~ INC.
~ Lot Shipyard Slvd. 35,720 54,95o 35,72~
CAPE FEAR ENTERPRISES
20 Acres Adjacent S.
Wilmin$ton Pl. 92,37~ 'I42,'I'IO '12'7,9'10
R. H. BOtcn~ivrIAGEN
4.'156 Acres Winter Park
Gardens 69,52~ 8~,790 8~,79~
xRS, w. n. PuGx
SW SE of Blk. 55'I '14,420 22,'180 '14,420
N.C.N.B. TRUSTEES
50 Acres Independence Blvd. 29,600 74,000 4'1,440
METROPOZITAN DEVEIAPER'S, INC.
28.6'7 Acres Oleander Dr. &
Independence Blvd. '103,030 203,960 '182,400
IAUIS W. CAMERON
50 Acres Independence Blvd.
'I/5 Interest '7,400 '14,800 'I0,360
BUSINESS PROPERTIESJ INC.
6'I.26 Acres Cumber `1'r. 25,600 39,38~ 39,38~
AGNES MCRAE MORTON
'i53.4~ Acres Tract 2 Noble
& Blein 4'7,350 '72,840 4~,350
BABCOCK & WII,COX
~47.02 Acres River Poad 94,780 ~~3,5~0 ~~3,5~0
B. W. NEWKIRKz JR.
']6y.y2 Acres Harris & Martin '10'7,510 307,'I'JO 30~,'1~0
~ ' SUGGS & HARRELSON CONST. C0.
2'70 Acres Silver LaY,e 43,880 67,500 6~,500"
"~973
NEW HANOVER COUIdTY
BOARD OF EQUAI,IZATION AND REVIEW
April '16, ~973
The '19`73 Board of Equalization & Review reconvened on April '16,
~g73, for the purpose of reviewing property complaints that had not
received final action.
Present at this hearing was Mrs. Vivian Wright, Mr. M. H. Vaughan,
Mr. Mike Hall, Jr., Mr. Douglas Powell and Mr. Peter Davis
Mr. Vau$han, Chairman of the Board, called the meeting to order.
Mr. Larry Powell presented Dr. Charles P. Graham~s complaint.
Dr. Graham's property is located at 304 North 'I'Ith Street. Mr.
Powell stated that he would suggest that 20'~ functional deprecia-
tion be allowed on this property, reducing building valuation
from $23,650 to $'18,920. Mr. Powell further stated that the other
buildings in that particular area were receiving 40'~ functional
depreciation but that they were B grade offices and Dr. Graham;s
is a C~rade. Mr. Douglas Powell motioned to accept Mr. Powell's
recommendation. Mr. Hall seconded. Motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Powell presented Lakeside Subdivision. His recommendation
was to reduce the total acreage from 76 acres to 53.49 acres, wYbch
according to the map is exactly correct. Mr. Powell stated that he
was not stating that the ownership of these lots are to the owners,
they are just stating by the recorded deed. This property will
have a'1973 valuation of ~'72,620; this includes 9~'16,260 valuation
for building. Mr. Peter Davis moved to accept Mr. Powell's recom-
mendation. Mr. Douglas Powell seconded the motion. Mr. Powell,
Mr. Davis, Mrs. Wright and Mr. Vaughan voted aye. Mr. Hall ab'stain-
ed. Motion carried.
North Carolina National Bank Trustees, 50 Acres Independence
Blvd. Mr. Powell stated that this property is owned by North
Carolina National Bank with 4/5 interest, with the 'I/5 interest
owned by the Camerons. Mr. Powell stated that when this property
was computed 'and the recommendations were made in the April 'I'Ith
~~ `7
MIN[TTES OF MEETING, MAY 2'I, 'Ip'73 - 9:00 A.M. (CONTIN[TED)
APPROVAL OF MINiJTES: BOARD OF EQUALIZATION AND REVIEG] (CONTINUED)
Minutes (Continued)"
meeting this property was figured that North Carolina National
Bank owning full interest;;therefore, this would reduce the pro-
perty from $5~,800 to ~4'1,440. Mr. Vaughan moved that th.is
recommendation be accepted. Mr. Dou~las Powell seconded. Motion
carried unanimously.
Foster Hill Realty was again appraised by Mr. Raymond Blake.
Mr. Powell stated that Mr. Blake asked that a 20'~o functional de-
preciation factor be allowed to this building, reducing from
$'14,560 to $'I'1,650. Mr. Powell stated that he would recommend
this allowance. Mr. Douglas Powell moved to accept this recom-
mendation. Mr. Hall seconded. Motion carried unanimousl3~.
Mr. Vaughan adjourned the Board of Equalization and Review
£or the year '1973."
"~973
NEW HkNOVER COUNTY
BOARD OF EQUAI,IZATION & REVIEW
April 16, ~973
Dr. Cha"rles P. Graham - Block 2'I4 W End 3 Pt. 2 or 304
North 'I'Ith Street. Present building valuation is ~23,550.
Mr. Powell's recommendation: Reduce the building value to
$18,92Q this is a 20'/o functional depreciation reduction.
Mr. Robert A. I,ittle - Agent for Dr. J. B. Sidbury.
Prcperty is Lakeside Subdivision. Mr. Povrell's recommendation:
Land be reduced to $56,360, no change on the build.ing value
of $16,260, total recommend.ed value $b~2,620. This is pricing
the property accordin~ to map and deducting for lots sold
plus minus of 30'/ excess for lots on Lakeshore Drive and the
53.49 acres only.
North Carolina National Bank Trustee. At the meeting
on April 'I'I, ~973, the recommended value for this propert5
was $5'1,800, this was in error as North Carolina National
Bank only owns 4/5 interest; therefore, the total value
should be $4'1,440.
Foster Hill Realt~ - Block '165 WM a Pt. 2 or 'I'12 Princess
Street, Front Building. Presently valued at $'14,560. Mr.
Powell's recommendation: Reduce to $'I'1,650; this is a re-
duction of 2~/ due to functional depreciation."
POLICY FOR DISPOSAL OF REAL ESTATE
Mr. Larry Powell, Tax Administrator, presented the following policy for
disposal of County o~,med real estate: '
"POLICY FOR DISPOSAI, OF COUNTY OWNED REAL ESTATE
'I. Whenever anyone is interested in purchasing propert~
owned totally by New Hanover County or in part with a
municipality, the individual will make their interest
known to the Tax Administrator
2. The Tax Department will appraise the property at fair
market value and inform the Board of County Commissioners,
and the governing body of the municipality of the inter-
est in the property and the value. At the next,scheduled
meeting of the governing bodies, the Board vrill discuss
the property and inform the Tax Office if they have a
desire to sell the property.
3. If other considerations are known, by the governing
bodies or the Managers and it is the decision of the
governing bodies an independent appraisal sh.ould be
made, the Manager will request this appraisal and in-
form the Tax Department of such. Once this appraisal
is made, the Board will be made aware of the value and
the Tax Office will be directed to proceed with the new
value.
4. Once the governing body has consented to selltthe pro-
perty and accept a fair market value, the Tax Office will
advertise the property once in each newspaper having
general circulation in the area (Star-News, Wilmin~ton
Journal and The Hanover Sun) at the figure the property
was appraised for. At the end of the ten days a higher
bid has been received the new bid will then be adver-
tised in the same manner of the first advertisement.
Once the property has been held ten days with no upset
bid the title will be transferred to the highest bidder.
A minimum upset of 20% on sales below ~2,000 and '10% on
sales above ~b2,000."