2007 Ct. Sup. 14732
No. CV04 4000292 SConnecticut Superior Court Judicial District of Stamford-Norwalk at Stamford
August 6, 2007
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
TAGGART D. ADAMS, JUDGE.
KIDK, Inc. (KIDK) appeals the valuation of its real property established for the Norwalk Grand List of October 1, 2003 by the Norwalk Tax Assessor at a full market value of $1,508,000.[1] The property at issue is located at 16 Orchard Hill Road in Norwalk. This tax appeal was tried to the court on May 15, 2007.
In a tax appeal the Superior Court tries the issues de novo. The issue to be resolved is the true and actual value of the property subject to taxation. The taxpayer has the burden of proving that the assessor has over-assessed the property. If this is established, the taxpayer is aggrieved, and the Superior Court must then make its own conclusion of the value of the property based on the opinions of appraisers, the parties’ claims and the court’s general knowledge. United Technologies Corp. v. East Windsor, 262 Conn. 11, 22-23 (2002).
Panagiotis Kousidis, the principal of KIDK, testified that KIDK purchased the property in April 2002 for $705,000. The property is approximately 2.95 acres in size and is located in a residential area. Because the property was zoned for one-acre residences, Kousidis testified that he and KIDK hoped to subdivide the lot but found that not to be possible because the existing private sewer line to the property was limited by the terms of an easement to serving only one residence. Kousidis did not believe he could build a profitable house with just a septic system. Therefore, KIDK tore down the existing structure on the property and built a new house and detached garage relatively close to the center of the property. The new house was substantially completed by October 1, 2003. Kousidis took title to the property in December 2003 or January 2004 and resides there presently. While, as noted, there was evidence at trial that KIDK had taken steps in 2002 to try to subdivide the property, there was no evidence that any such steps were taken after construction of the new house was started.
Kenneth Whitman, the Norwalk Tax Assessor, explained that the 2003 CT Page 14733 assessment, arising from an inspection including the interior, which took place on September 26, 2003 found the fair market value of the building to be $1,036,800 and the land value to be $471,200. The Tax Assessor’s field card notes a finished living area of slightly over 5,000 square feet, four bedrooms, three full bathrooms and a half bathroom.
KIDK presented an appraisal of its property as of October 1, 2003 prepared by The Austin McGuire Co. based on a sales comparison approach using eight “comparable” sales. The Austin McGuire appraisal put the fair market value of the subject property as of October 1, 2003 at $1,250,000. Ex. 2. Michael McGuire testified that it was difficult to find comparable home sales in the Orchard Hill Road section of Norwalk. He said his appraisal valued plot sizes larger than the required one acre at about $25,000 per “rounded acre” because of the additional privacy provided. He pointed out he was told the subject property was not sub-dividable.
The defendants presented an appraisal of the KIDK property by Castiglia Associates which used the comparable sales approach and was based on six “comparable” sales. Ex. F. This appraisal put the fair market value of 16 Orchard Hill Road at $1,500,000. Ex. F. Donald Simonetti of Castiglia Associates testified that his appraisal added $250,000 to certain comparable sales to account for subdivision potential.
The court has considered the competing appraisals carefully. To the admittedly untrained eye, they both appear to be professionally prepared; however, there are some significant differences. The average sale price of the eight comparable sales in the plaintiff’s appraisal was just slightly over $1.0 million while the defendants’ six comparable sales averaged $1.321 million.[2] The two appraisals contained only one identical comparable sale, that of a residence located right across the street from the KIDK property at 17 Orchard Hill Road which sold in December 2002 for $1,072,500. This was a five-bedroom, three-and-a-half bathroom residence with 3727 square feet of finished space built in 1998 on a one-and-a-quarter-acre lot. After making adjustments to presumably make the sales comparable, the defendants’ appraisal valued the residence at $1,550,900 and the plaintiff’s appraisal value it at $1,267,000. The most significant difference in the two approaches was that defendants’ appraiser added $250,000 to account for the subdivision potential of the 16 Orchard Hill residence which was lacking at 17 Orchard Hill. Indeed, Simonetti testified that he had added $250,000 to the sale price of four of the five actual sales used in his report for the same reason. The only sale that was not so adjusted was the sale of CT Page 14734 a 2.97-acre residential property.
The court concludes that the plaintiff’s appraisal is a more accurate measure of the subject property’s fair market value as of October 1, 2003. The addition of a quarter million dollars to reflect the value of the potential subdivisibility of the property is too arbitrary and speculative. The present owner of the property hoped to subdivide the property when KIDK purchased it in 2002, but abandoned these plans and subsequently built a large residence in the middle of the property increasing the already severe obstacles to subdividing. The court finds an insufficient basis to support valuing the property as one with subdivision potential. Furthermore, the inclusion as a comparable sale of a house with a list price of almost $1.8 million which was not sold seems to skew the defendant’s appraisal upwardly inappropriately.
This court determines that the subject property was over-assessed as of October 1, 2003. The court further determines that the fair market value of the property at 16 Orchard Hill Road in Norwalk, Connecticut as of October 1, 2003 was $1,250,000.
CT Page 14735