DocketNumber: Nos. CV00 0502753S, CV00 0502754S, CV00 0502756S, CV00 0502758S, CV00 0502759S
Citation Numbers: 2002 Conn. Super. Ct. 16591
Judges: ARONSON, JUDGE TRIAL REFEREE.
Filed Date: 12/20/2002
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/18/2021
Docket No. Lot No. Assessor's valuation Board of Assessment Acreage Appeals CV 00-0502753 2B $35,500 $28,400 5.91 CV 00-0502754 2 $191,900 $168,500 16.58 CV 00-0502756 2D $113,200 $105,500 6.09 CV 00-0502758 2E $97,600 $93,100 4.01 CV 00-0502759 2A $143,100 $130,200 9.63
The plaintiff claims that all of the subject lots have substantial wetlands problems that inhibit building on the lots. The plaintiff argues that the wetlands problems detrimentally affect the fair market value of the lots. Judicial District of New Britain
The court finds that, as of October 1, 1999, the plaintiff was the owner of five unimproved lots in a subdivision in Suffield. The subdivision was approved in 1978. Presently, the subject lots are approved industrial lots with no wetland permits. Prior to development, each lot must be approved for use by the Suffield Conservation Commission based on a current soil survey. "As the lots stand today, they are legally subdivided lots, however, they are not legally buildable because there are no Conservation Commission permits that are currently valid. . . . [F]or the permits to be issued, each lot would have to be re-flagged for wetland areas and submitted along with a site plan to the Commission for approval." (Plaintiff's Exhibit B, Appraisal Report by Thomas W. Henry, p. 23.)
The plaintiff's appraiser, Thomas W. Henry, determined that the highest CT Page 16592 and best use of the subject lots was for limited industrial use and valued the lots as follows:
Lot 2B $8000 Lot 2 $78,000 Lot 2D $8000 Lot 2E $6000 Lot 2A $34,000
Henry concluded that Lots 2B and 2D could not be built upon since he was of the opinion that both parcels were entirely covered with wetlands. Henry valued Lots 2B and 2D at $1300 per acre.
Henry concluded that of the 16.58 acres in Lot 2, 10.09 acres were wetlands and 6.49 acres were non-wetlands area. Henry valued the non-wetlands area at $10,000 per acre and the wetlands area at $1300 per acre.
Henry concluded that Lot E was almost entirely covered with wetlands except for 0.34 acres of land that are located in different portions of the property. Henry valued the wetlands at $1300 per acre and the non-wetlands at $2500 per acre.
Henry concluded that the 9.63 acres of Lot 2A consisted of 8.32 acres of wetlands and 1.31 acres of non-wetlands. The 1.31 acres of non-wetlands are located in two sections of the lot not in close proximity to each other. Henry valued the wetlands at $1300 per acre and the usable non-wetlands at $18,000 per acre for the 1.31 acres.
Henry based his conclusions on the location of wetlands on each of the subject lots as shown on a soil map located in his appraisal report. (Plaintiff's Exhibit B, Henry's Appraisal Report, p. 30.) Henry obtained this soil map from the Suffield Conservation Commission, which is responsible for the determination of wetlands on property located within the town of Suffield.
The Suffield Conservation Commission requires property owners seeking to develop land in Suffield containing wetlands to engage a soil engineer to lay out the wetlands on the property and to then present an application to the Conservation Commission for permission to use the wetlands. Pursuant to General Statutes §
Where property is adversely affected by wetlands and watercourse regulations, a property owner may seek tax relief from a diminution of value caused by these regulations. General Statutes §
Until the plaintiff files applications for wetland permits and the Conservation Commission makes a determination regarding the wetlands on the lots, it is unknown whether, or to what extent, the plaintiff has valid claims that the lots are of limited industrial use and are thus overvalued for assessment purposes. Whether the plaintiff will be granted licenses to use the wetlands on his lots can only be determined after the plaintiff files applications with the Conservation Commission after complying with the Commission's requirement of conducting an engineering survey of the wetlands on the lots.
"In a §
While the plaintiff argues in this case that his appraiser's valuations of the lots should be accepted by the court because the town has failed to present expert evidence to support the town's assessment of the properties, as stated above, the initial burden of showing an overvaluation of the property rests with the plaintiff. See Konover v.West Hartford, supra,
The values placed on the lots at issue here by the assessor ranged from $4805 to $23,217 per acre. We do not know the extent to which the presence of wetlands on the property was reflected in the assessor's valuation of the lots, and, as discussed above, we do not know the extent of the impact of the wetlands on the potential development of the lots. The assessor's values on a per acre basis, however, fell below or within the broad range of prices per acre of $6352 to $42,782 for the industrial lots presented as comparable sales by the plaintiff's appraiser.
Accordingly, we find that the plaintiff has not sustained his burden of showing that the subject lots were overassessed by the assessor. Judgment may enter dismissing the plaintiff's appeal, without costs to either party. CT Page 16595
Arnold W. Aronson Judge Trial Referee CT Page 16596