Kittery Board Denies Moore's Island Tax Abatement Appeal

[1:04:50] Leslie Wood: Good afternoon everybody. Before we start the formal proceedings, why don't we go around the room say who everyone is? I'll start. My name is Leslie Wood and I'm the [1:04:58] Mike Carey: chair of the assessor group. Mike Carey, I'm the counsel for the board this [1:05:03] Chris Lyon: evening. Chris Lyon, one of the contract assessors for college Kidry. Sally Coco, [1:05:10] Mary Tron: member of the board. Mary Tron, member of the board. Graham Lewis here representing [1:05:21] Assessor's office representative: the assessor's office and [1:05:25] Jonathan Sobel: I'm Jonathan Sobel, the applicant. Why [1:05:30] Mike Carey: don't, yeah, why don't you introduce yourself as well so [1:05:39] Leslie Wood: I now need to read the opening statement of the Board of Assessment review. We meet today for the purpose of hearing a property tax abatement appeal filed by Jonathan W. Sabell as trustee of the Jonathan W. Sabell Revocable Trust. First, I have a question for all board members. Does anyone have a relationship with the taxpayer or have knowledge about this case that would prevent you from fairly and impartially hearing the facts and deciding the case based on the evidence presented at this hearing? [1:06:14] Sally Coco: I think I feel obligated again. I'm Sally Coco and I don't think this will be a problem, but I do believe I need to state that my husband was a home appraiser. He stopped working more than ten years ago. I'm not aware in any way shape or form that he ever appraised this particular property and so I need to put that out there. I believe that if you're uncomfortable with that I can recuse myself and we do have an alternate. No [1:06:45] Graham Lewis: problem. I would also like to mention that I do not know Mr. Sobel but I do also have a waterfront property that is in the flood zone and had a similar increase in valuation at the last. I don't think it would make a difference in my judgment on this but just to disclose that I do have some similarities with this particular case. [1:07:15] Jonathan Sobel: The applicant has no problem. [1:07:17] Assessor's office representative: The assessor's office also doesn't have any issue with these potential biases. [1:07:24] Mike Carey: Yeah, can I, if I can address two issues. One, I just wanted to kind of note for the record that the town's website indicates that member Thrawn's term ended in 2025. I had spoke with, I had communicated with the board's staff back in April and she after researching it assured me that the Town Council had reappointed her for the term and just had not updated the website. That's the first thing. The second thing is I was shared a, some public comment from a member of the public that I'll circulate to the board as well so that there's, everyone has it. You can choose whether or not to address it when you're... [1:08:15] Leslie Wood: Since this information is new to, I think, all of us, and it's very short, may I suggest we just read it? We don't need to comment on it right now, but let's at least know what it is. Otherwise, I, for one, will be wondering. I think we are going to stick with the board as up here right now. Let's move on. At this time I request that those in attendance of both the taxpayer and the assessor introduce themselves, but we've already done that, so let's move on. The procedures that the board will follow in this hearing are as follows. The taxpayer will present information that it wishes the board to consider in connection with its appeal of the town assesses denial of its requests for an abatement of taxes assessed for the 2025-2026 fiscal year. Any witnesses presented by the taxpayer may be questioned by the assessor and the board also will have an opportunity to ask questions of the witnesses. After the taxpayer's presentation is complete, the assessor will have an opportunity to present evidence and information the assessor wants the board to consider. The taxpayer's attorney may ask questions of witnesses, presented by the assessor, and the board will also have an opportunity to ask questions of the witnesses. After the assessor's presentation is complete, the taxpayer will have an opportunity to present responsive information and the assessor will then have an opportunity to present information in response to the taxpayer. After all information has been presented, the record will be closed and the Board will deliberate on the issue of whether the taxpayer is entitled to an abatement of taxes assessed for the 2025-2026 fiscal year. The taxpayer and the assessor will be permitted to be present during the Board's deliberations if they wish, but they may not participate in that portion of the meeting unless the Board decides to request additional information, in which case both parties will have an opportunity to address the requested information. The evidentiary part of this hearing is being recorded so that there is a record of all the information that is being presented. After the taxpayer filed a request for abatement dated February 4th, 2026 of property taxes for the 2025-2026 fiscal year, the assessor denied the request for abatement on May 12th, 2026. The taxpayer then submitted an abatement appeal application dated July 9th, 2026 to the Board. This is an administrative hearing and not a court proceeding or trial. Therefore, the formal rules of evidence will not apply. But the Board may exclude evidence that is irrelevant, immaterial, or unduly repetitious. As Chair of the Board, I will determine the appropriateness of admissibility of evidence with advice from the Board's attorney. I would ask the Board's attorney to swear in any witness that is at this time. [1:11:50] Graham Lewis: Can I just say something first? Should we do the agenda item of approval of [1:11:55] Mary Tron: minutes before we do the hearing? I guess that makes sense. Can I get to the end of [1:12:00] Mike Carey: this and, yeah, oh, sorry, why don't we do, Mr. Sobel, will you be testifying? Yes, I will be presenting Mr. Lions. Yeah, what do I do? So if you raise your right hand and just, do you swear at a firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing about the truth? [1:12:24] Speaker I (unidentified): I do, I do, thank you. Are [1:12:28] Leslie Wood: there any questions at this time regarding the procedures that will be followed? So I'm going to wait for a moment, but before I tell you can begin, thank you. All right, we are now going to approve the minutes of the meeting on June 3rd, 2026. [1:12:50] Graham Lewis: I move the minutes be approved as written. [1:12:55] Sally Coco: All [1:12:58] Leslie Wood: right, the taxpayer may now [1:13:04] Jonathan Sobel: begin its presentation. Yes, thank you. Thank you, Chair and members. I'd like to hand out some materials which will be helpful to supplement the materials that you've already received, and I will refer to them as we go along, if I may approach. Hopefully we made it enough, two groups of these, and I will explain them shortly. I'll get this one to these [1:13:51] Leslie Wood: multiple copies of the same thing there [1:13:54] Jonathan Sobel: are two piles, right? Actually different, even though they look similar, they are a [1:14:00] Mike Carey: bit different. So can I suggest that you maybe mark, let's mark them for, so should I, is it all, the two piles, are they kind of page one, page two of one exhibit? [1:14:16] Jonathan Sobel: No, it's all one pile exhibit one, pile exhibit two. These are different. There we go. And you've made a great observation. Three piles. Okay. There we go. So there should be like six copies here. So that's A. To distribute one to each person. This is B. [1:14:43] Leslie Wood: And this is C. I guess I get to be like the school teacher and take all this stuff all around. All right, so I'm going to take that and one over that direction. So [1:15:04] Mike Carey: I just want to keep one official copy for here, and then we'll do. Here's B, A. Whilst [1:15:56] Leslie Wood: it's tempting to make paper airplanes, I won't. Oh, yes. [1:16:08] Mike Carey: So, Mr. Sobel, the one that has CAI technologies up in the corner I labeled as A. Yes. The one that appears to be a USDA national map from March 12, 2025, I labeled B. And then the tax card that I think you earlier submitted as 8, I labeled that C. [1:16:31] Leslie Wood: So some of this is a duplication of things we've already got. Is that what you're saying? Maybe. Maybe. Maybe. We'll see as we go. [1:16:39] Jonathan Sobel: Yes, in explanation, the survey labeled A shows the coastal hazard and critical shoreland designation by the town of Kittery, and this was passed as an ordinance to designate these coastal areas August 24th, 2026, by the town of Kittery. These, this map, and it shows the subject property at the very bottom, shows that it is entirely within the critical shoreline hazard area. The second one labeled B again shows the property, and if you hold it at a distance it may be easier to understand, it shows that the property is again nearly entirely within flood zones A and E and VE, with the exception of a portion of the house in the middle. This is important because this is a unique parcel which is subject to significant storm and water damage, especially with, can I stop you for a moment? I don't have [1:18:01] Leslie Wood: a B I ended up with two ace anybody got to be all right I apologize but I didn't [1:18:20] Jonathan Sobel: understand what you were talking about. Yes, of course the B is a flood zone map, and it is taken from the official Kittery flood zone, which again shows that the property is entirely within the flood zone, with the exception of what is the dot, or the sign with the dot, which is the house. And the reason that I'm trying to explain this is that this is indeed a very unique property which faces the Atlantic Ocean, Pepperell Cove, and Chauncey Creek, and is subject to severe damage, which has an effect, I believe, on the assessment. The reason for showing this to you is to show, in fact, that the town of Kittery has accepted this as a hazardous and critical shore land zone subject to damage. In addition, you will note in your packet was our two surveys, one was done in 2000 and one in 2025, 25 years later. The first one in 2000 again more clearly delineates how the property, the majority, 90% of the property, is in a designated flood zone. [1:19:48] Leslie Wood: Sir, I know how incredibly familiar you are with all of this. This is my first time. I'm an engineer, I can read a drawing. Which drawing are you on? [1:19:58] Jonathan Sobel: This one has a picture of a little house. [1:20:01] Leslie Wood: Picture of a little house. Give me the drawing number; that'll help me much more. [1:20:05] Jonathan Sobel: It's in the corner. [Leslie Wood: C1 or?] It is from the Anderson-Livingston surveyors. Their name is in the right-hand lower corner, Anderson-Livingston. Let me open it now. My [1:20:26] Leslie Wood: apologies for keeping stopping you, but if you want me to understand, you have to let me do that. What is it that you're telling me about this drawing? [1:20:34] Jonathan Sobel: This is quite complicated, and that's why I brought these materials. [1:20:37] Leslie Wood: I'm an engineer. I'll be fine with the complication. I just need you to do it slowly. [1:20:42] Jonathan Sobel: So this is from Anderson-Livingston. It's a recorded survey by an accredited and boarded surveyor that shows that the property in question is nearly entirely within the flood zone, both the flood zone B2 and elevation 11A2. The reason to designate these is that it indicates the frequency of flooding in this area, and this is 25 years ago that the surveyor noted that this was in fact [1:21:22] Leslie Wood: in a flood zone. So the thing I'm looking at is a solid line, and it says V2 flood zone elevation 14. Yes, that's correct, and that's the words. That's the highest the [1:21:33] Jonathan Sobel: water, that's the highest point of the entire property, and it consists of only 10 of the entire property. The residual 90 of the property is virtually several times a year underwater. And what does V2 stand for? Now we need a special engineer. V2 indicates elevation 14, which means that means that when the water surges to 14 feet, it will hit this mark. [1:22:06] Leslie Wood: The question really is, this high or high-high? [1:22:09] Jonathan Sobel: This is high-high. Are you sure? [Graham Lewis: In 2000.] This is back in 2000. Okay. It's high. [1:22:20] Leslie Wood: It's 14. Because it's an A2 flood zone, that's 11 feet. That's the reason for asking and trying to understand what it is you're telling me. Yes. [1:22:28] Graham Lewis: May I make a comment? I think the V, there's the V2 and the VE. The V in there has something to do with wind and wave action. [Jonathan Sobel: They've changed this.] I think so. [1:22:42] Jonathan Sobel: They've changed the designations. FEMA changed them, and you are correct. The V zones indicated intensity of wind, water, and force against the property in question. So if a surveyor looks at this, they would say if you're hitting V2, you're getting pretty good force. If you're down in A2, you're several feet underwater and have even more force. [1:23:14] Leslie Wood: But that's what you think. It's not a fact, that, because you're not a surveyor. [1:23:18] Jonathan Sobel: No, this is a fact that these flood zones indicate the level that the flood will occur when the water achieves 14 feet, that is [1:23:34] Leslie Wood: Absolutely factual, we're only asking to try and understand, so who determines [1:23:44] Sally Coco: where would we reference the distinction v2 or ve, is that written, where is that [1:23:55] Jonathan Sobel: That is written in the town archives. It is taken from FEMA maps, and the town accepts the maps, which they have the redo of the FEMA maps. [1:24:11] Leslie Wood: Maybe I can make this real clear. If you look at the notes, it's item three. Yeah. Then it becomes not your opinion, nor my opinion. Very good. [1:24:19] Sally Coco: But then, so then, this surveyor, Anderson Livingston Engineers, are they simply determining an elevation, or did they have access, did they access FEMA and or town maps to acquire this information, or was this based on their own elevation assessment? [1:24:42] Jonathan Sobel: If you refer over to the right-hand upper corner, it references in the notes exactly how they derive this. These are from deeds, from paperwork, and from their physical, actual physical measurement of the elevation of the property. [1:25:05] Sally Coco: Yeah, I guess what I'm asking is, so Anderson Livingston went out to the property and quite rightly determined, for example, that this is an elevation of 14 feet. That is correct. But somewhere someone has to say, at 14 feet, the following situations can occur. And that's from the feet. [1:25:28] Mike Carey: Can I maybe – does the town stipulate that there's flood zone in the property and the VA and the two – Yes. And I don't know that we kind of need to go all the way down. I think the town may agree. [1:25:42] Jonathan Sobel: The first two pages that we – [1:25:43] Assessor's office representative: If I may just respond. Yes, please. Yes, the assessor's office is not disputing that the property is located within the flood zone. It's not disputing that there's easements on the property. property, it's not disputing any of these factual considerations that Mr. Sobel brings up other than his purported true value of the property. [1:26:06] Leslie Wood: Right. Thank you. That helps. I appreciate your answering the questions. It really helps us understand. I know we're supposed to wait until you're finished, but sometimes that's kind of difficult if we don't understand what you're talking about. [1:26:19] Jonathan Sobel: Please. I think it's very complicated. [Leslie Wood: Please proceed.] So 25 years later, because of storm damage, we required for the third or fourth time a permit from the state to repair the damage to the property itself. But also required at this time, the ordinances now require a permit from the town to repair anything. So this map was produced in 2025, and you'll notice... [1:26:58] Leslie Wood: Again, the map you're referring to is 61. [1:27:01] Jonathan Sobel: Yes, this is the map produced by civil engineers, and it's Michael P. Peavrett is the surveyor. [1:27:11] Mike Carey: So was this in the documents that you presented? Yes. With your application? [1:27:17] Jonathan Sobel: Yes. Which page is that? It was folded up. [1:27:22] Sally Coco: The one labeled EC1. [1:27:23] Graham Lewis: We all got a big one. We all got a big one of it. I don't know if you did. [1:27:28] Jonathan Sobel: I did not. Everybody should have had a big one. [1:27:30] Graham Lewis: It says EC1 in the bottom right. Okay. Is that the one you mean? Yes. [1:27:34] Mike Carey: EC1. Great. As long as you have it and we know what we're looking at, that's great. [1:27:41] Jonathan Sobel: So this surveyor, again, confirmed the location of the buildings but focused on the repairs that had been done to the property over the years. You'll notice in the gray hatched area in almost a circle around the house, there are areas which say new riprap, old riprap. This map was, this survey was obtained to document the repairs to the riprap that protects the house. And the point that I'm making is that you will see that there is riprap virtually all the way around the house itself. And again, it's protecting approximately 70% of the property because the riprap, the retaining walls are inside of the property lines. But it confirms the first survey that was done 25 years ago. It also adds what is called the highest annual tide mark. The highest annual tide mark is something now required by Kittery to determine the distance of a building from the protected water. So they have increased the I should let me correct that they have decreased the distance from a building to the water can you tell me which line on here is [1:29:29] Mary Tron: the highest annual so the other aspects of this particular repeat survey is [1:29:51] Jonathan Sobel: is, again, the easements, which we will refer to as we go along. There are actually three easements that are on this property. I'll just reference them right now so that when I bring them up to describe them, it won't be new. New, there is a power company easement along the east side of the property. There is a driveway easement for the neighbor to access their property that comes across the property. And then, most importantly, it shows that this property actually owns what is called the intertidal zone, which is from high tide to low tide, which is actually an easement for the public to use. That I'm sure some of you may have heard the term fishing, fouling, and navigating, and that is an easement for the public to use your property for those three things. So there actually are three easements, two which encompass the entire eastern boundary of the property and one which goes virtually around the entire property. So I just, this is sort of the background so that you can, I hopefully have explained this well enough so that you can understand this is essentially a rock with a house on approximately 10% of the property and the rest of the property is in a very easily damaged flood zone which has become more easily damaged and that will go to a point later on as to whether shoreland property the question, can shoreland property be devalued by storm damage, by destruction, by unusability? Or conversely, can seashore properties like this be devalued because of increasingly complicated ordinances which make building or rebuilding impossible? possible. As we go along, I will present to you some evidence that will help clarify that. Are there any questions that I could answer at this moment? [1:32:31] Leslie Wood: It's a small question, but it's on my mind. The elevation for the highest annual tide mark I believe is 6 feet 3 inches. Is that correct? Say again? 6 feet 3 inches. to [1:32:53] Jonathan Sobel: go to note 9 the highest annual tide line was determined actually by the state of Maine and it's quite it's very complicated I wish that I could explain it better but the highest annual tide line is a physically definable level that was determined by the state of Maine several years ago and is currently used as a benchmark to determine on an average year what is going to be the highest annual tide it does not address storm levels or hurricane levels it just says on the average the highest annual tide is going to go to that point and we [1:33:47] Leslie Wood: agree at six feet three inches that's what it says yeah elevate i'm actually just reading for the drawing i just wanted to make sure that yeah you read it the same way as me right it says [1:34:00] Jonathan Sobel: elevation 6.3 yep and the elevation 6.3 actually refers to a distance above mean high and low tide so it's it doesn't actually mean that if you stand there it's six feet tall it's a reference point to what the sea does on a daily basis what it says on this [1:34:25] Leslie Wood: Drawing is that line where it exists on your property. Yes, is the point that has been determined by the Kittery zoning ordinance, yes, to be the high [1:34:38] Jonathan Sobel: The highest annual tide line. The highest annual tide line. Yes, they have accepted this. That's much better. And this has been recorded. [1:34:44] Leslie Wood: I just wanted to make sure we were seeing the same things. [1:34:49] Jonathan Sobel: And I was understanding. You're most welcome. Thank you for being so patient. [1:34:53] Leslie Wood: You're the one being patient with me right now. [1:34:56] Jonathan Sobel: You practically have to be a surveyor to understand where this is located. Okay. Please proceed. And, again, I produced Exhibit B and Exhibit A, which are taken from the Kittery website as definitive proof that Kittery has accepted these flood zones, which I believe my colleague has stipulated they accept as flood zones. Prior to this meeting, our colleague here wrote a letter to members of the board in regards to the abatement appeal. And basically, if I may just quickly summarize, because it will come together as we move into the evidentiary portion of this, they state that... Is this something we have? [1:36:12] Mike Carey: Yes. May I interrupt? Yes, so the better practice would be for you to put forward your evidence, yes, and then answering and then address any questions at that point, then the town has a chance to make its presentation including what's in writing, and then you can answer that. Okay, I'll, I will respond to this as a rebuttal. Yeah, that would be perfect. Very good. All [1:36:35] Jonathan Sobel: right, well, at this point you get another handout. How about that? Again, it has been referenced that we do not provide evidence here, but this is in your packet that was originally submitted, however, it is now typed up. [1:37:01] Leslie Wood: Oh, you have to go back to the microphone, sir. [1:37:05] Jonathan Sobel: This is a handout which is typed out which is basically compiled from the information in the original submission for appeal. It will help explain it and the handout I'm going to give to the chair to distribute and then I will go through the evidentiary portion of the presentation. Multiple [1:37:36] Leslie Wood: copies of the same document which we'll label exhibit day, oh and [1:37:57] Jonathan Sobel: there is a copy for you. Thank you. Yes, is this essentially [1:38:04] Mike Carey: your written argument summarizing the evidence? Yes, it is. Thank you. In rather [1:38:10] Jonathan Sobel: Rather than my chicken scrawl handwriting, it's typed. So just to summarize this, so now that we've looked at where the property is, the summary is that the property, the assessment, was increased by $943,700, which is 93% over the previous assessment for 24. Nearly all of the increase was in the land itself, which rose from $787,700 to $1,654,600, which is about 110%. This occurred in spite of the fact that during this period of time and prior to this period of time, two storms had hit this property and that the property was actively being repaired from severe storm damage. The applicant contends that the land value does not reflect the conditions that materially value the property. Two, there are two deeded easements as we discussed. There's a public easement that is in the intertidal area and the property is in the flood zone where erosion conditions cover most of the parcel and finally the documented seasonal use. Just to go briefly into the seasonal use of the property, this is a cottage that has been improved over the years. However, it's poorly insulated. It has no basement. It is simply sitting on rocks itself, and so there's no insulation in the floor. And the reason for handing out what is marked C, or the tax card, is that if you look at the bottom part, the building permit record, that's just the beginning of the building permits that we have had to maintain and repair this property over a number of years, starting, it appears, in 2001. The assessment history is very important here, because of all of those improvements and all of those permits that we obtained over the years, the property was periodically revaluated. This is in contrast to many properties in our neighborhood as well as all over Kittery that were not reassessed for prolonged periods of time. So the contrast is this property was looked at every couple of years and revaluated because of improvements or repairs that we made, and it was brought up to a current valuation. Even though it was not a town revaluation, you can see from this paperwork that indeed the property was re-evaluated by the code enforcement office and the assessor and that periodically the assessment for the property was improved. That is why it was a big surprise that the property value for the land went up 110 percent when it had already been increased since 2000 100 percent. If you look under assessment history in 2023 the land was listed as 984,700 and in 2024, it's listed at $787,700. That is because an abatement appeal was made and I worked with Paul McKenzie. I met with him at least four times and worked with him to review the survey material, the ongoing ordinances, the current repairs to determine what would be a current value for the property. And an extensive review by him and his company was made over the course of 23 and 24, and as a result of their review, they decided that an abatement was in order and that the current valuation of the property would be less than what they currently had. And so the valuation was reduced to $1,019,200. Now, this then jumps from 24, where there was a revaluation, a thorough and complete revaluation, in 25, it's now valued at $1,962,000. So the amount that it's increased is almost a million dollars. And this is on top of the fact that it had been periodically reassessed and the valuation had been kept current throughout the years. So it's not like some property that they forgot about for five or ten years and it's surprised your property is now worth more. This has been looked at by the assessor, I would say, at least eight times. And the property value was increased at least five times. During that 25-year period, the sources for this are the Kittery card, which you can see, and the requested total is about 2.2 percent above the 2023 assessment and 23 percent above the 2024 assessment, which allows for market depreciation. So we've discussed the prior review by the assessor. You can read that if you'd like, and then I'd like to move on to the grounds for abatement. Incidentally, this is not a static affair, it is an ongoing affair. We are still repairing from the storm surge from two years ago, and if you note our neighbor, and they have on file an immense project to build a giant seawall in front of their house and to completely replace their entire dock system, which was wiped out by the shoreland storm surge. Again, grounds for abatement. Two easements substantially burden this parcel. The property is encumbered by, these are deeded easements, each of which materially reduce its value, and nowhere is that reflected in the evaluation and assessment of this property. The driveway easement is in favor of an abutter. We all know that if somebody else is driving in and out of your property, it reduces its value. I'm unable to close gate or exercise exclusive control over the property because they and their guests are legally and respectfully allowed to transfer to transport across the Property there is a utility easement, similar story there, you read about that. And then finally, this is a an interesting and I and having listened to your meetings many times, I actually have not heard anybody bring this up, but according to the experts, the intertidal areas are a legal public easement, and the people that walk out on our property between high and low tide and fish and picnic, they are legally allowed to do that in the state of Maine. This is in contrast to Massachusetts, where they boot them out. But here in Maine, we allow this. That also devalues the property, and that also is not taken into account in the evaluation of the property because so much of the property is actually in that intertidal zone, the flood zone, marshland and erosion. Most of the parcel does lie within the FEMA designated flood zone adopted by the town of Kittery. This is also incidentally referred to as Phillips Island, as if you go back 150 years, I believe the Phillips owned it, and somewhere along the line the name was changed to Moore's Island. At any rate, this property cannot be developed in any way, shape, or form at this point in time because of all of the land use requirements and ordinances that have been passed and have been referred to. The seasonal use we've discussed, how the house is not insulated very well, the water line originally was just laying on top of the ground. The problem is to get the water line underneath the house in a protected location, we've been unable to do that. Provided in the original submission is actually a letter from the Kittery Water District Director indicating that they, in fact, every single year shut the water off to the house. And recently when they changed their system around, I've included a copy of the paperwork showing that they're actually, that they record there is no water use during the winter. So for 25 years, this house is unoccupied, mothballed from basically November to May. And we believe that is a seasonal use that results because of the decrepit condition of the house and the supply of the water. If you'll notice, the town Count of Kittery has accepted this as a usage and noted that it's functional seasonal use, but most importantly, there's no seasonal use devaluation, or there's no seasonal use adjustment in the paperwork itself. Finally, the condition of the house is quite old and rests on stone cairns, and this is contributed to a rodent problem. I hate to admit this, but it's true. If you live on a river such as Chauncey Creek or Piscataqua cafe, or excuse me, the Piscataqua River, you do have river rats and they do invade. I wanted to go on to the comparable sale and assessment, and this again could be a handout to help you follow along. I apologize that we need to have so many handouts, but I do think that this is such a complicated matter that the handouts may help [Speaker I (unidentified): so if you] look at the top it lists the subject property we've discussed that exhibit a as it's listed here is 132 Pepperell now it is incredibly difficult to find a comparable to this property on Moores Island Lane there has not been a sale for 18 years so there's no sales history if you go in the adjacent area on Pepperell Road say ten houses down or ten houses to the east or ten houses to the west you can find one and there is a recent comparable and in fact it's 132 Pepperell Road and 132 Pepperell Road is it lists a lot size as point two of an acre I believe that's incorrect it's a bit bigger than that. The house at an arms-length sale this year, February 13th, sold for $1,350,000. And of note is that this property has waterfront, although it's more tidal, so they do not have storm surge and damage. It has a very large boathouse and it had has a house on it and it arms-length deal 1 million 350,000 it sold the assessment however was for 1 million seven hundred seventy nine thousand three hundred I don't know how you can justify that. A very recent sale, an arm's length deal, and it's assessed quite a bit more. I believe it's $429,000 more. The reason why this is the closest comparable as it's the only one but it's also if you take the land usable land area on 12 Moore's Island it's point two of an acre so and the rest of it is in the flood zone or is in the intertidal zone it on the back of your paperwork there's a half page and the half page is for a property that is on Moore's Island Lane it does not have a number for some reason but it is parcel 2733c the leaky family it is 0.61 of an acre it has road access like private road and it has a dock and it has a mooring, and this entire property of 0.61 was assessed in the revaluation in 2025 for $84,000. So there seems to be some ability here to adjust the land value. And let me repeat that. That's $84,000 for a very nice parcel of land with a dock on it. And it is used. And just continuing, unless there's any question. I know you're in shock. I was in shock when I saw this. But it's a comparable. It's on Moores Island Lane Road. It's a private lane. It's a used property and it has a dock and it has access to the water so it is a comparable. It is the only other property on Moores Island Lane that shows that there is some discretion on the part of the assessor in terms of evaluating and pricing land value. [1:55:32] Sally Coco: Well, my question was, this your decision that this should be considered a comparable? Yes. I understand that it's the only existing sale, I understand that, but so you're offering this. [1:55:44] Jonathan Sobel: It's the only one to offer. [1:55:47] Sally Coco: Right, can I just, forgive me, What is an arm's-length sale? Is that an accepted term? [1:55:53] Jonathan Sobel: Arm's-length sale refers to a sale between two parties in which neither party has an exceptional relationship, such as brother, sister, co-businessperson, or somebody that you know. The sale is purely based on a competitive sale. And in the case that we discussed on 132, I believe, yes, 132, excuse [1:56:24] Sally Coco: me. I believe you're saying that a traditional business arrangement as opposed to something within a family or other. Yes. [1:56:33] Jonathan Sobel: Okay. There's no ulterior trade occurring for furniture or for anything. I [1:56:45] Graham Lewis: have a question. you gave us this little picture here in the original yes okay is this which land that pager you want oh this here it says it doesn't have a page in my handout but it's the one that's addendum says addendum e3 thank you and it's it's a picture of the area and is one of those one of the right one of those is that this property that you're talking about oh the no number property yes it says [1:57:20] Leslie Wood: they need to go back to the microphone or you have to do it all again now you [1:57:25] Jonathan Sobel: just trying to be convenient for you in response the original submission The submission contained a map of the entire Moores Island lane that depicts the unlabeled lot of Charles D'Entremont, Alan Phillips, and Thomas Leakey, and that is depicted on this particular map. Okay. [1:57:54] Graham Lewis: And Thomas Leakey is the one that you were doing on this little half page here? Yes. [1:58:02] Leslie Wood: since he pointed it directly to you let's the rest of us make sure that we understand it's that little half circle so [1:58:12] Jonathan Sobel: Yes, right, yes, so the Leaky family, I believe they're family members, actually those names there, is valued at roughly 1 20th the per acre land rate of every built lot on Moore's Island Lane, including the subject property, even though it is waterfront property with a dock, and it's, it's demonstrates that the Assessor's, and I think this is critical, it demonstrates that the Assessor's valuation method is in fact capable of reflecting unbuildable limited use waterfront lot at a substantially reduced rate. So in other words, if the Assessor says, well, I don't have any leeway in assessing this land property that's waterfront, that's incorrect, and it's demonstrated here they use great jurisdiction to assess this property at such a significantly discounted rate. There is no comparable reduction has been applied to the property that I'm applying for. No comparison. There is nowhere is there any indication, and I believe it's not fair to say, well, the price that we've given you for an assessment takes into account all those defects. The fact of the matter is that this paperwork shows that on one property they do take into account something and greatly reduce it, yet on our property that is clearly demonstrated to be disadvantaged because of climatic conditions and other conditions already discussed, there is no discount given. And that in fact the property had been assessed and reassessed year after year after year, there was no catch-up here. When they added nine hundred thousand dollars, that was excessive in our opinion. We believe that it is unreasonable, we believe that it is unfair, and again just to, if you would like to see this in writing, so it's a comparison showing all of those [2:00:40] Mary Tron: properties, this will be exhibit. Yes, so you don't, is there, is there [2:00:53] Sally Coco: anywhere information from the Assessor's that explains why they made this determination? [2:01:01] Jonathan Sobel: No, that's their private business. We will be able to ask them. We'll get to that if we need that. [2:01:06] Leslie Wood: Yeah, just getting one half of the stories. Did you get one of these? Anyone else need one? Okay, so what's exhibit F or 7, depending on... [2:01:19] Jonathan Sobel: There you go. So that just puts it in writing so that you can see it clearly rather than my scribble. So tonight, I believe that we have arrived at the standard of presenting comparables because we found a real comparable that recently sold that is waterfront that has a similar usable property size, land size. We have shown that the assessor's office has the discretion to take into account factors, and in this case, not to bore you, I apologize, but in this case, we've shown definitively that this property, make it simple, is underwater several times a year. And the usable property is about 0.2 of an acre, or approximately 10% of the whole parcel is waterproofed. And nowhere did the assessor's office take into account these factors that significantly devalue the property, both for its use or potentially for its resale. And in terms of resale, we have one of only one locally that shows that the value is, at an arm's length deal, approximately $1.3 million. So we've compared those. We've provided actual hard proof. We've provided the town of Kittery ordinances that show that the property is extremely and highly restricted and that it is in the flood zone and flooded and we believe that the assessor's valuation is capable of reflecting these conditions which it has not it has dumped nine hundred plus thousand dollars onto land value which again sorry to repeat myself in the interim that property me property has been slammed by two major coastal storms, requiring repair, which is documented, I'm not making this up, is documented through state permits and through town of Kittery permits. The burden of proof for my making my case is to provide tangible comps. There was only one, and I have provided it. The assessment, in my opinion, is not reasonable or fair. I believe, again, today we demonstrated through expert surveys that are recorded, town FEMA and FEMA mapping, coastal hazard mapping, ordinances that have been passed by the town planners in August of 26, and the repairs that we have had to make. it results in a value and I believe that I have been accused of not giving a value for what I believe that the property is worth and in my original application I did and you might say that seems really low how could that be so low well this is a property that is regularly damaged and has a house that's ready to blow away i suspect that when we're all gone but by the time we're all gone that house is going to blow off the hillside so the fact of the matter is that we have reached the burden of Proof here that the property needs an adjustment for the land, and if you will search through your paperwork, the original printed paperwork as well as the paperwork that we've submitted today, we do suggest a price. In retrospect, to be frank with you, might say that price is low. I would say if you were to pick the comparable that just sold, the price of that house that just sold, I would say somewhere between what I picked and what that sold for is a reasonable value and would be accepted by the applicant. So in the Commission's looking at this, if they feel that they need some leeway in a figure, I believe the figure falls between what is written here and what recently at 132 Pepperell Road the property actually sold for in a hand arm's length sale. Is that, does that [2:06:24] Leslie Wood: complete your clarification questions? Yes, because we need to hear the other [2:06:39] Assessor's office representative: side. I would just appreciate the opportunity quickly cross. Why don't we [2:06:54] Leslie Wood: Okay. Thank you. My questions are all for clarification at this point, just because I decided to just let you get through it before I asked any. When it comes to the easements, when was the drive-away easement, when was it created? [2:07:10] Jonathan Sobel: The easement was created in a deed to Treadwell in the, I believe, the 1850s. [2:07:18] Leslie Wood: 1850. Thank you. Approximately. [2:07:22] Jonathan Sobel: You know, we've gone to Alfred to find deeds before 1850, and they're all handwritten, but we could not find any before 1850. [2:07:32] Leslie Wood: And I'm hoping that the utility one is in 1850, but let's go with this. When was the utility easement created? [2:07:40] Jonathan Sobel: I believe 1998, roughly 1998. [2:07:48] Leslie Wood: So they're not new easements. They've been in place for a long time. Yes, they have. And I think I read correctly, and again, not my area of expertise, so somebody correct me if I'm wrong, that the intertidal easement, it says Maine 1989. That must have been some kind of legal decision. But I make, because it says Bell versus the town of Wells, [2:08:10] Mary Tron: halfway down. Oh, that was a big court case. [2:08:12] Leslie Wood: Yes, and that was when that, essentially, that was put into law that they had that intertidal. I think it was already in law. It was challenged. It was confirmed. So it was before 1989. We can all agree on that. Yes. [2:08:25] Assessor's office representative: And for what it's worth, the assessor's office is not contesting that this property has intertidal areas and that the public has the right to enter those intertidal areas. [2:08:34] Leslie Wood: I just want to understand how all of this comes together. [2:08:37] Chris Lyon: That comes into play with every waterfront property. Yeah. Right. It's not unique to this one. No. Right. [2:08:43] Leslie Wood: I just wanted... It was the date to me that was important, more than the actual. Yeah, many of us live on or near the watering kitchen. It's kind of hard not to, really, isn't it? [2:08:54] Jonathan Sobel: Excuse me. May I interrupt just for a second? You've brought up, I'm sorry, I can't see your name from here. My name, Chris Lyon. [2:09:04] Mike Carey: Chris Lyon. Thank you, Chris. So why don't we, are you going to rebut that comment? [2:09:11] Jonathan Sobel: I did have, I can wait. [2:09:13] Mike Carey: Yeah, why don't we wait and have maybe kind of all the – any clarifying questions for the taxpayer and then the town and then rebuttal. [2:09:20] Leslie Wood: Okay, so the last question from my point of view then, you guys, is this business about seasonal use. How long has the property been seasonal use? [Jonathan Sobel: Since the beginning.] Since 18-something or other? Yes. Okay. And I want to understand this business, there's a water line that the town of Kittery maintains or the property owners maintain? How does that work? [2:09:46] Jonathan Sobel: No, it's a private water line. [2:09:47] Leslie Wood: -huh. Okay. So you do, thank you. Those [2:09:56] Sally Coco: are my questions. Thank you. So to carry on with the questions with regard to the driveway easement, we're looking at, I believe we 've, we've had, we have accepted in the past an assessment on your property and you purchased this property at some point. I don't have a date here. I should, I'm sure it's in here somewhere. It [2:10:25] Graham Lewis: says 2000. Is that 's what it says on the property card, September 2000. Yes. And so you, we have a property here for which the [2:10:37] Sally Coco: driveway easement has not changed. And so a discussion of what one may or may not do with access to one's property based on the neighbors, I'm struggling to see the relevance with regard to this current discussion. And along the same lines, the same with the utility easement. Those are facts of the property which, as I understand it, are long-standing and haven't changed. The same with the seasonal use of the property. That was the intent under which it was purchased and under, as I understand it, so I'm struggling to see why any of those are impacted over time. And then with regard to the definition of the usable land area, knowing that we have setbacks and other laws in place, I guess I'm curious to know in what ways the functional use of your land has changed over time, with an acknowledgement that there may or may not be some erosion. But if one wants to talk about gosh, the high tide, what's the highest annual tide line and the flood zone and whatnot, what is one being prevented from doing in recent years or say since the storm of january 13 2014 2024 what has what has changed in the use of your property as a homeowner so those are you know I am I wrong to think that we're looking at previous assessments that were agreed to and now we have a new assessment and the discussion seems to be centering around some of these what don't appear to be forgive me don't appear to be changes in my mind with regard to your benefits to this property. [2:12:55] Leslie Wood: I have a suggestion. I have that concern, too, hence my questions. And we're fed from each other. But maybe the thing to do is to let the town's lawyer, unless Mary, you have something on a different topic, in which case, please go ahead. If we can try and keep it to clarification so let this poor guy speak. [2:13:13] Graham Lewis: Should I ask my question? I'm curious as to how you came up with your $700,000 abatement number to get it down to the close to $1.3 million value? Was that just pulled out of the air or how did you come up with that? No. [2:13:30] Jonathan Sobel: That was based on my working with Paul McKenzie for almost a year in trying to find comparable properties and his reviewing the entire history of the increased assessments year after year after year and he realized I believe I obviously I can't speak for him but I think that the thought is that the property was fully assessed at that time or if not overly assessed [2:14:04] Speaker I (unidentified): So I'm going back just to 24 which is post-COVID. So the 2024 assessment came as a result of [2:14:14] Leslie Wood: of backwards and forwards conversations with this person, Paul McKenzie, and that's how that number was derived, the 1019. [2:14:22] Jonathan Sobel: Right, it wasn't just conversations, this was a formal abatement. [2:14:26] Leslie Wood: Sorry, I apologize, thank you for clarifying that. But I think Mary's question is associated with your current request. How did you build that up? Am I correct, Mary, or not? [2:14:41] Graham Lewis: Wait, but I think he answered it. He said he went back through all of the assessments and other comparables, and it was based on those previous conversations. [2:14:50] Leslie Wood: So you went back to Paul McKenzie. [2:14:51] Jonathan Sobel: It was based on the previous assessments done by the town of Kittery, but it's also based on a comparable, which is located, I can see the property from where my house is, that was $1.3 odd million. And it is the only current comparable property done at a hand's length deal. [2:15:12] Leslie Wood: So you didn't go back to Paul McKenzie for your current request? Can we just clarify? [2:15:16] Mary Tron: It's Paul McKenney. McKenney. Who is this person? My apologies. [2:15:20] Graham Lewis: He's the town assessor. Oh, right. Okay. [2:15:23] Leslie Wood: So you didn't have any conversations with Paul McKenney about your current request? [2:15:30] Jonathan Sobel: No, nothing directly. It became formalized that I was required to appeal this at this board. [2:15:38] Graham Lewis: And then I have another question. Is the fact of the flood zones or the possibility of a well or anything like that limiting your lot from being able to have a year-round house? [2:15:57] Jonathan Sobel: I believe that is correct, but the greatest problem is that the entire house needs to be raised up. A real foundation built the wind blows underneath the house and so it has to be raised up and a real foundation built and whether the house could stand that it's quite old it's literally a decrepit old main cottage 1881 you're built we [2:16:28] Chris Lyon: have that's what we estimated yeah before 1920 you were sort of guessing on these things I think sometimes so yes [2:16:39] Jonathan Sobel: So our estimations here are predicated on the work that we had done previously and the fact that we were given an abatement and finally our assessment our guesstimate if you would have it is based on the fact that there and I did not mean to get into a debate about climate change but it's very clear that here in Kittery via town ordinance they believe that there is climate change and that there is increasing storm damage and that these properties are increasingly at risk of being lost so it's Based on all of these factors that I presented but again I want to emphasize that this isn't just I'm not just dreaming that this up. These are hard ordinances passed in Kittering. I'm very familiar with those. [2:17:38] Graham Lewis: Right, so I'm not making it up. Right, so I understand that part, but do you have any indication of whether or not you could have a working well on that lot? The individuals who [2:17:53] Jonathan Sobel: have drilled wells as close as we are to the seashore get brine, typically, and so I've been advise that is not a good solution okay that's [2:18:06] Graham Lewis: those are my questions we move on to the [2:18:10] Assessor's office representative: time your turn all right thank you very much first thanks for being here tonight I know all of you are volunteers and taking time out of your day in that vein I will hopefully keep this as short as possible I think the way that I would like to approach the assessor's office side of things is just to first ask Mr Sobell some follow-up questions about the exhibits that he presented then to ask Chris Lyon the assessor a few follow-up questions and then just to have a bit of a monologue for lack of A better term talking about the law that should be applied in this case, or at least my interpretation of the law, and obviously the board has, you know, counsel for, you know, explanation and questions on the law as well. So in that vein, I'd first like to look at the exhibit introduced by Mr. So Bella, I think it was labeled E, but it says at the top comparable sale and assessment. So Mr. Sobel, so Bell, I apologize, I want to look at this 132 Pep rule row that's supposedly a comparable sale. Yes, it is. [2:19:27] Jonathan Sobel: It is not so much a comparable sale, but it's the only sale within 2,500 feet of this property. So it's a close-by sale. [2:19:38] Assessor's office representative: So if it's not comparable, are you saying that it's— [2:19:42] Jonathan Sobel: No, I do not mean to say it's not comparable. It is comparable, but it's close. It's within the geographic area in question. [2:19:49] Assessor's office representative: Is it fair to say that most of the value of this property and of your property is based on the land's valuation, not the improvements upon the land? [2:20:02] Jonathan Sobel: Such as the house? Yes. Yes. I believe that this is what has occurred in recent years, is the valuation techniques have moved towards valuing the land, not so much the house, because they realize that the house is a dispensable item and in looking at the most worthy use of the property the just use of the property they realize that the just use may be a tear down someone might conclude that [2:20:35] Assessor's office representative: the most just use of my property is a tear down. All right, thank you. I'm going to ask you some yes or no questions, so feel free to respond with a yes or no. The lot size for 132 Pepper Road, it's about one-fourth of the lot size of your property, correct? Right, and [2:20:56] Jonathan Sobel: however, I've already testified that the lot size of usable land is equal. Mr. [2:21:05] Assessor's office representative: Sobel, if you could just answer the questions that I asked, that'd be appreciated. The land value of 132 Pepperell Road, or I apologize, you've stated that the majority of the valuation of the land is built up in the land value. This land is one quarter of the size of your property, is it not fair to say then that this value of the arm's length sale should be roughly one quarter of what your properties were [2:21:32] Jonathan Sobel: Well I'm not in agreement with you because the it is not one fifth the size, the usable portion of the property. And this is what I believe this board has to consider, is what is actually usable property. The town of Kittery has introduced so much legislation over what is usable and not usable, or for that matter what is damageable or could be torn apart because of a storm, makes comparing the usable area critical. And I and I have testified that it is equal in usable area as the property in question. [2:22:14] Assessor's office representative: When you say usable area, do you mean where you can actually build? [2:22:18] Jonathan Sobel: Where the town will allow a structure to be located. [2:22:23] Assessor's office representative: Is it fair to say then that your approach would prohibit the town from assessing property within a setback? [2:22:32] Jonathan Sobel: This is not an issue of their ability to assess or to not assess. It is the planning board's job and the Department of Variants, the Board of Variants, it's their job to determine whether they will allow a house to be built within a setback. [2:22:53] Assessor's office representative: It sounds like what you're saying is that if there is land that can't be built upon for legal or practical purposes, that land should not be taken into account when valuing a property. [2:23:03] Jonathan Sobel: Is that what you're arguing? I am arguing that an adjustment needs to be made in an assessment of a property like that in which part or most of the property is not usable, either by code, by wind, by storm. [2:23:24] Assessor's office representative: So along those lines, I'd like to turn to the second page of this exhibit. It's the half page, and it refers to an undesignated property on Moores Island Lane. This property, you don't know whether or not it's buildable, do you? [2:23:47] Jonathan Sobel: Can you tell me a parcel number, a map, and lot number so that I can refer to it? [2:23:54] Assessor's office representative: This is your own exhibit, the second sheet. [2:23:55] Jonathan Sobel: Yes, and what map and lot number? [2:23:58] Assessor's office representative: Well there's only two there, one is your property and one's the other undesignated, you know, number is that the 2733 C, and that is coded as an unbuildable lot in our system. Okay so you don't know if you can build on this, it sounds like you might not be able to. Well I do know that they have never applied for a variance to build. Hey can you build on your lot? No there's no location on your property where you can build, is that what you're saying there? [2:24:31] Jonathan Sobel: Is no location whatsoever outside of the existing footprint of the existing house. [2:24:37] Assessor's office representative: Okay so there can be a structure built on your property if you tore down the [2:24:41] Jonathan Sobel: house. Okay so is it fair to say that there's a house, there is a house. [2:24:45] Assessor's office representative: There is, it fair to say then that this unnumbered parcel on Moore's Island Lane is distinct from yours insofar as it cannot be built upon and yours can? Yes, that is a difference. All right, of course. Next, I'd like to look at exhibit 7. I apologize, I don't know. Thank you. And specifically the second table down town where you highlight the land dollar per acre. Mr. [2:25:25] Jonathan Sobel: Can I just look at your sheet for a second? Land, oh, dollars per acre, yes. [2:25:34] Assessor's office representative: Mr. Is it fair to say that your primary objection to the assessment is that it valued your land too highly? [2:25:40] Jonathan Sobel: Mr. That they increased it by $900,000, which is excessive. [2:25:45] Assessor's office representative: Mr. Is it true, though, that the value of your land per acre is less than three of the five properties you identified on this table appropriately so and is one of those properties that is actually less valuable per acre the you know unnumbered lot on Moore's Island Lane that you can't build upon less valuable well that I believe that 's a [2:26:13] Jonathan Sobel: mistake. I can't comment, whether I can't comment in a comparison with the property that to me as a layperson that is a complete and total mistake in [2:26:26] Assessor's office representative: assessing. Okay, I think those are all the questions that I have for Mr. Sobel. Now if there's no follow-up from the board, I'll turn to Mr. Lyon. For the record, Mr. Lyon, could you please state your name and your role with the town? Yep. [2:26:44] Chris Lyon: I'm Christopher Lyon. I'm a contract assessor with the town of Kittery. [2:26:47] Assessor's office representative: All right. What is your experience? [2:26:50] Chris Lyon: I've been with Kittery for two years. I'm an assessor about 15 years and a certified residential appraiser for more than 20 years. [2:27:00] Assessor's office representative: Can you just briefly describe how Kittery goes about valuing properties? [2:27:04] Chris Lyon: What we do is mass appraisal. So we take sales from the last couple of years and apply those to every property in town as far as we look at location, age, type of house, waterfront or not waterfront, of course, and then any extra features like barns, docks, that sort of thing. [2:27:28] Assessor's office representative: And does that process use, you know, comparable properties when looking at a specific site? [2:27:33] Chris Lyon: It's not like a bank appraisal, you don't do apes, you don't look at each house individually, you we take their debt in our system and what the property sold for then apply that to everything in town, so you know other waterfront properties would be compared to Mr. Sobel's property would [2:27:53] Assessor's office representative: other properties that are burdened by easements be taken into account? Yes, the driveway easement [2:28:00] Chris Lyon: Is not commonly found even though there are many properties with that utility easements generally found and the title easement goes along with every waterfront property out there, so it's kind of [2:28:12] Assessor's office representative: Baked into the system. Sure, Mr. Sobel argues that the assessment didn't take into account these land factors, the easement, flood zone, etc. Yeah, can you speak to that? Yeah, his assessment is [2:28:27] Chris Lyon: Reduced by 20 for the land and the building because of the seasonality and other factors. Paul has looked at this as well and, you know, had it not had that 20, the [2:28:41] Assessor's office representative: Assessment would be around 2.5 million. Okay, so just to be clear, the assessment already decreases the value of the land by 20 percent for correct these factors into account, yes. Has the assessor's office seen comparable properties with these same defects? [2:29:06] Chris Lyon: No, there's very few seasonal properties left out there. Everything's been converted pretty much to year-round. As far as flood zone and things like that, yes, there's quite a few properties out there, even recent sales that have buildings and or lots located in the flood zone. [2:29:26] Assessor's office representative: And do you know if a 20% reduction is always applied for these types of properties? [2:29:31] Chris Lyon: Generally, it's less than the 20%, so he came to the agreement with Paul for the 20%. We left that on for the revaluation as well. [2:29:42] Assessor's office representative: Okay, so this might be more generous than other properties are. Yes. All right, next I'd like to turn to the building or the improvements on the property. Mr. Sobel says that, you know, the assessment doesn't take into account the fact that this is a seasonal home. What do you have to say to that? [2:30:01] Chris Lyon: The improvements are reduced by 20% as well. Okay. [2:30:11] Assessor's office representative: Next, Mr. Sobel, I apologize, I keep butchering your name. Mr. Sobel asserts that the property should be valued according to its 2024 valuation. Why,, in your opinion, is that an inappropriate valuation to use? [2:30:30] Chris Lyon: Well, during the reval for 2025, we did a townwide study on values, what the sales are, you know, that applied to our CAMA, which is Computer Assisted Mass Appraisal System. You know, and even with that 20% reduction, his lot value did come up to the 1.6 million. [2:30:54] Assessor's office representative: Okay and the 2024 valuation what is that based on our last full revaluation was in 2020 [2:31:05] Chris Lyon: But it looks like Paul had reduced it some after discussion with Mr. Sobel on [2:31:11] Assessor's office representative: For that particular year so the 2020 reval is that based on sales from 2018. [2:31:17] Chris Lyon: Yes. We used the previous two years, and our last reval overall townwide, it went up about 62%, I believe. And if we isolated waterfront properties, I imagine that would be closer to 75% to 100% with the sales that we've had. [2:31:37] Assessor's office representative: So are you saying that property values have increased 60% to 70% from 2020? [2:31:43] Chris Lyon: From 2020, yes. Okay. To 2026. [2:31:46] Assessor's office representative: To 2025 and the 2024 valuation is based on that 2020, yes. Okay. Now Mr. Sobel noted that, you know, there have been updates to the property which resulted in a more recent, you know, assess or valuation examination rather, of the value of the property. If you could take a look at what's been marked as Exhibit C, it's the property card. Yeah. When is the most recent building permit that has been issued? That one is not on here. [2:32:29] Chris Lyon: I believe there was a 2025 permit for, oh, if you're repairing your rip rap or what that was for exactly, but that was, you know, the dollar amount was less than five thousand dollars and we wouldn't even bother looking at the property for that, you know, doing anything about that. All right. [2:32:46] Assessor's office representative: So that most recent building permit wouldn't have affected the valuation of the property. [2:32:52] Chris Lyon: Now what's the, and generally for those things like that, for repairs, you know, like somebody puts on a new roof, you know, it doesn't substantially increase the value overall. [2:33:02] Assessor's office representative: Value of the property. And so it looks like since the 2020 reval there's been one building permit issued that's listed on this property record in 2024. Can you speak to as to if that permit would trigger a reason? It looks like he just replaced his propane tank. Okay. You know, [2:33:26] Chris Lyon: required as a permit by town, but we see that the same as, you know, putting in windows or something. [2:33:31] Assessor's office representative: Like that, we don't make adjustments for that. And do you work with Paul McKinney? Yes. Mr. Sobel stated that, you know, the 2024 reevaluation is based on Mr. Kinney's opinion of the property. I know you can't speak to what's going on in Mr. McKinney's head, but in working with him, you know, is the 2024, 24 valuation, a fair valuation of the – [2:34:08] Chris Lyon: No, it's not a representation of the current Machiavelli, and Paul did look at his initial application for an abatement and recommended rejecting it, which led us here. All right. [2:34:22] Assessor's office representative: Last, has Mr. Sobel ever provided any information to the town about how the property could be converted to full-time use? [2:34:32] Chris Lyon: He's, has a narrative of what needs to be done, but we haven't seen any dollar value of, you know, what it would cost to bury the water line sufficiently or insulate the foundation. [2:34:45] Assessor's office representative: In your opinion, is it possible to convert this to full-time use? Yes, people rebuild all the time and [2:34:54] Chris Lyon: or convert. Well, there's not many houses left to convert anymore, so but in the past, you know, many seasonal properties have been insulated and brought up to code for full-time use. [2:35:08] Assessor's office representative: The last question I have is in preparing for today, I know you looked at comparable properties, you know, is there any information about those properties [2:35:18] Chris Lyon: that you'd like to share with the board? I do have a list of other sales in the area I can give to the board. Well, [2:35:42] Mary Tron: my question [2:36:08] Assessor's office representative: is simple, you know, based on the I do have one here, so based on the properties that you found that were comparable and these, well, let me rephrase that. You stated earlier that you've been in this line of work for over 20 years. In your professional opinion, based on those 20 years of experience, are these, you know, quote-unquote comparable properties indicative of what Mr. Sowell's property might be worth. [2:36:46] Chris Lyon: It's a good indication of value. They are not seasonal, but many of them are in flood zones, and some also have the house in the flood zone as well. Sale number one, the property information is not really relative because they bought that lot for $3.5 million just to tear down the house and rebuild something else there. One of the Pepperell Road was right next to the other Pepperell Road that Mr. Sobel had brought up, too. There's a map. They're all in that general area. None of them are out on an island like Mr. Sobel's property. [2:37:34] Assessor's office representative: Do you think that being out on an island might, in fact, increase the value? [2:37:39] Chris Lyon: Well, it's a very nice view of the lifeguard station. The boats tied up, but it was a matter of opinion on that one. It may not like all the boats in the way, and seems to be that the ability to have a deep water dock is a very big factor in these waterfront properties as well. Thank you. [2:38:01] Assessor's office representative: Is there anything else that you think the board might want to hear tonight? No. [2:38:06] Chris Lyon: They can look this over, draw their own conclusions. All right, I just have a few [2:38:12] Assessor's office representative: final comments to make, but I'll hit pause while you all take a look at what Chris just handed around, and once you're ready, just let me know. All right, thank you. Like I said, the last thing I want to do tonight is just speak quickly about the law involved, so as you all know what the board's role tonight is to do is to look to see if Mr. Sobel has through affirmative credible evidence shown that the property's valuation is manifestly wrong. And does he provide credible evidence of what the true value of the property actually is? It's his burden to prove this. The assessment itself is presumed to be valid. And simply put, Mr. Sobel has not done that. The town is not disputing that the property has several defects, for lack of a better term. It is burdened by easements. It is in a flood zone. It is, you know, battered by waves and wind. That is not in dispute. But that's not what Mr. Sobel has to show tonight because the assessment already takes all of that into consideration. As you heard, you know, the value of the land and the building itself has been decreased by 0.8 or sorry by a factor of 0.8. That's even more than many other comparable properties. Are simply put the assessment is consistent with how all other properties of this kind have been valued. And when I say of this kind I mean properties that are burned by easements, that are short front properties, that are in a flood zone. That is already taken into account. But even if that wasn't taken into account the appeal has to fail tonight because Mr. Sobel has not met his burden to show what the property in fact should be worth. If he shows that the assessment itself is manifestly incorrect, you know, generally we see folks in his position bring appraisals or estimates of a sale price from a realtor. Nothing of that sort has been provided tonight. Rather, what he rests on is the 2024 assessment. As you've heard from, you know, Mr. Lyon, that assessment was based on sales occurring in 2018, you know, seven years before the year in question, the tax year in question. Moreover you also heard that since 2020 property values have increased between 60 and 70 percent in Kittery, even more for on the higher end for waterfront properties like the one in question. This is all to say that the 2024 assessment is outdated, for lack of a better term. It does not continue to apply in 2025. The reason why towns conduct periodic re-evaluations is because these things fall out of line with what true market value is. And that's exactly why the town needed to conduct a re-evaluation in 2025. It's because the 2024 assessments were at roughly.8 percent – sorry, 80 percent of what the true market values were. I don't want to overly complicate the Board's role here. And so, again, I'll reiterate, this really boils down to two questions. First, has Mr. Sobel shown that the assessment is incorrect? We'd say, no, he hasn't. The assessment already takes into account all of the things that he's alleging. And two, even if he's done that, has he shown the true value of the property through credible evidence? And again, no, he has not. All he rests on is this 2024 valuation that has significant question marks attached to it. And with that, I will leave you to your deliberations unless the board would like to hear anything else from Mr. Sobel. [2:44:03] Chris Lyon: Let's have one final statement. When doing a reassessment, one thing that is not considered at all is the prior assessment of the property, so [2:44:15] Assessor's office representative: Thank you, and I apologize, but if I'm, if I might add on just one more other point of law, it's a lawyer, I'm a lawyer, it's what I do. The law court in Maine, in the count, in the case that we cite in this letter, Madison Paper Indices V Town of Madison, highlights that properties must be valued at their highest and best use. And what a property's highest and best use is distinct from what its current use is. Namely, and I'll put it in terms that are relevant here, just because the property is being used as a seasonal property or seasonal residence doesn't mean that it should be valued as such. if this residence could be turned into full-time use then that is how it should be valued i don't know why mr sobel hasn't taken the you know steps to do that 's not relevant for this board but the fact that he hasn't shouldn't come into play tonight and with that i will stop talking thank you does mr sobel get another yeah unless there's clarification questions [2:45:25] Mary Tron: Questions for the town. Mr. Sabell gets it. Do you guys have clarification questions? I have questions, but I don't know if it's clarification. Are there specifically clarifications to Matthew? [2:45:37] Graham Lewis: Well, I guess I can ask a question of Chris. If the town takes into consideration, I know that there was a discount given to this particular lot because of the negatives. Yes. And in different lots with that are in flood zones, do you look at the difference between, you know, for example, all of these things you gave here say that they're in flood zones, but some of them are quite a bit higher, so the houses are completely out of the flood zone, and Mr. so bells is clearly in the flood zone do you differentiate between those kinds of disadvantages yes well looking at this I [2:46:22] Chris Lyon: Just looked for nearby sales of houses where the house or the and or the lot [2:46:29] Graham Lewis: Was in the flood zone? No, but I'm thinking in the evaluation itself, is that taken to account whether it's just the house in the flood zone? Many times [2:46:38] Chris Lyon: there will be a factor on the property itself, you know, that like the 80% that we are, the 20% reduction, there may be a 5% reduction which carries through to [2:46:50] Graham Lewis: the reveal, you know, those don't get wiped out, so the deductions might be different on different properties. And then another question, do you think if a property cannot have a well except for a brackish well, it does that mean that it could not reasonably be a year-round property when there's no water available, no town water available in the winter? There is water available [2:47:17] Chris Lyon: but the, you know, people can bury, even in ledge you can bury water lines, but you know at what cost? Of course, you know, you're looking at substantial cost many [2:47:29] Graham Lewis: times, so oh, so water, I guess I'm, water, okay, but that, but so the Kittery town water does go the whole, the whole level, it just you just have to connect to it [2:47:44] Chris Lyon: it, yeah, it's just not suitable for year-round use because of the elevation line, it would freeze if they didn't, right? He could put a private pipe [2:47:55] Graham Lewis: in to connect that was low enough that where they could have year-round water [2:47:59] Chris Lyon: yeah, you know, everything has a cost, of course, I understand that, okay, just I'm [2:48:05] Graham Lewis: glad I clarified that because I made an assumption based on my own neighborhood, so that's bad. [2:48:12] Leslie Wood: So we're agreed it's on-town water, and although the current pipe is not suited for winter use, clearly it's above ground, in theory, because we're none of us plumbing engineers here, then it could be converted, as you say, at the prices [2:48:28] Jonathan Sobel: out of this place. I believe I previously testified that the house could be raised and a foundation nation built and a new water line brought in that is, however, you're talking many hundreds of thousands of dollars. Would it be better as a tear [2:48:52] Speaker I (unidentified): down once you get to that point? Yeah, absolutely, fair enough, and not really [2:48:56] Leslie Wood: the subject of this hearing today, not unreasonable given that met some, at least one of these, I know, is one of those kinds of houses that was torn down. Okay. Where are we up to? So now we get to the rebuttal. So, Mr. Saville, you have the opportunity now to rebut anything that you wish from what has just been said. Yes. [2:49:20] Jonathan Sobel: Yes, I don't want to necessarily rebut what you've said, but I've heard over and over that the calculation was 20%, that there was a discount of 20%. First off, I'd like to understand how or where it shows that a 20% discount was given. And secondly, I'd like to state that it's 20% of 80% of the land that's underwater. It's a major flood zone, and it's been characterized and legally documented by the town of Kittery to be in the coastal hazard zone. So when you say you've taken into account 20%, is it 20% of a hundred thousand, or is it 20% a hundred thousand of usable land, or is it 20% of [2:50:18] Chris Lyon: the flood zone or marshlands, 20% of the entire property, and on your land line at the bottom of the property record, see that point eight, that's where that's [2:50:29] Jonathan Sobel: factored in, and it's a site individual condition. No, that's the site index, but [2:50:41] Chris Lyon: the condition factor is where that suggested that 0.8 right versus a one. [2:50:47] Leslie Wood: Could you just be very clear about where that is, make sure we're all on the same [2:50:52] Chris Lyon: page? Evaluation section towards the middle, it says cond period condition. [2:50:57] Leslie Wood: Oh yeah, condition, yep, thank you. We were all trying to find it while you were [2:51:00] Chris Lyon: talking, so not listen here, but the improvements and depreciation has a 20% [2:51:08] Jonathan Sobel: reduction as well, and property record card itself is that a 20% of 150 year [2:51:16] Chris Lyon: old house? It's a 20% of the effective age of the house and building improvements, so you're praised, your improvements are 308 300, so it's that's a 20% reduction of what it would have been if we did not have that factor on [2:51:38] Graham Lewis: there. 20% of the whole assessment or just the building assessment? Is 20% of [2:51:45] Chris Lyon: the whole assessment, just it's listed in two different places. The land is down there, and the depreciation is not on the card itself, but it is in the property [2:51:56] Jonathan Sobel: itself. Previously, with all due respect, you mentioned that the mass appraisal was done, and this house was the final appraisal on this house was predicated on that. However, it seems as though you also stated that a mass appraisal was not possible here because no house had sold on Moore's Island Lane. In fact, when, if I may ask, you said that the previous abatement that was made in 23 goes back to sales from 2020 to 25, and it would appear superficially to me that would justify that, but in fact there were no houses sold in this area or [2:52:49] Chris Lyon: there were no comparable houses. That's what mass appraisal is for. We take other sales and apply it townwide, right? You know, have you done a bank appraisal on this house? It'd be very difficult because there are not a lot of sales out [2:53:04] Jonathan Sobel: There in fact the only sale that has occurred in the proximity is the 132 [2:53:12] Chris Lyon: Peperal Road. No, there are other sales as well. Are [2:53:19] Jonathan Sobel: there of the group that you showed us here? Yeah. Are there any houses that are almost circumferentially surrounded by ocean [2:53:30] Chris Lyon: or no? It's not on none of these are on an island. You have none of them are on island but sale number four, the house is in the flood zone. [2:53:43] Jonathan Sobel: Yes, that house is in a flood zone. If I may address Mr. Gray, would this be the appropriate time? You said we did not provide any credible evidence of value, yet I presented the one and only house that sold that is comparable, terrible, located on Pepperell Road, 132 Pepperell Road, in which the usable land space was.2 of an acre. It was waterfront. It contained a large boathouse, and it sold for $1.3 million, and it was appraised for much more than that. Isn't presenting that credible evidence? I [2:54:41] Assessor's office representative: would first ask the board's attorney I'm happy to answer the question in so far as you know I did editorial eyes and have presented my opinion here I'm also representing the board do you have any objections to me right you know answering Mr. Sobel's question as a suit de facto witness yeah I mean it's a it's [2:55:06] Mike Carey: a I don't I think it's a question for the board I mean it's the board here is the role for the fact finder the I agree with Mr. Gray's characterization of the law which isn't it's at the your burden to show that the assessment is presumed first he says it presume correct it's your burden to show that it's manifestly wrong and credible evidence is the is the standard of how the board would determine that it's manifestly wrong or manifest as a standard events so whether or not there's credible evidence he's argued [2:55:40] Assessor's office representative: that there is not it's really the board's judgment so I did have one [2:55:54] Jonathan Sobel: additional question of Mr. Lyon in looking at the biggest overview that you can are there other properties that have sold in which there has been significant repeated shorefront damage year after year on 270 degrees of the [2:56:19] Chris Lyon: property I did not research that in particular but I can probably say there [2:56:24] Jonathan Sobel: is not because of your unique location and if I may embellish this it is a unique location and will I have a matter of protocol we'll have a moment just to have a little [2:56:43] Leslie Wood: small recap or not only if we think it's necessary I'm currently not thinking it's necessary If others disagree with me, please say. You do have the floor right now, so finish your sentence is what I think I'm trying to say to you. [2:57:04] Jonathan Sobel: The point that I asked of the assessor is, are there other unique properties that suffer significant climactic change? And again, not trying to get into an argument about whether climactic change exists or not, but the town of Kittery per ordinance believes that it exists, and that's what's governing us here. So that's about it, thanks. Okay. [2:57:35] Graham Lewis: I have a few more questions for Chris, but I don't know if this is the right time sure to ask. My understanding is that for lot valuations, this was what Paul had told me in the past, is that particularly for waterfront, I don't about other ones, the per acre calculation isn't really that important. There's like a minimum for a buildable lot, and then the bigger it is, it goes up, but not on a prorated basis. The most valuable piece. So that could explain why the bigger lot on Moore's Island had a lower per acre. [2:58:14] Chris Lyon: That runs true with almost all land in town. If you take a interior building lot of an acre versus somebody with eight acres, you know, the per acre value will be much less on eight acres because that, because that valuable portion is that place where you can put a house, you know, as that little lot on Moore's Island where you cannot put a house, you know, is valued very low. Had Mr. Sobel's house not been there, you know, you might not be able to build, and we would value that lot completely different than we do now. And [2:58:50] Graham Lewis: then another question on the valuations of the neighboring properties, you said that Mr. Sobel's property had a 20% reduction. And did the neighboring properties likewise get similar reductions? [2:59:05] Chris Lyon: I believe, I don't know if I can skip to the neighboring property right now or not. [2:59:11] Graham Lewis: The reason I'm asking is that the neighboring, like the Charlesworth is a much larger lot that looks like it would, I guess, I don't know for a fact, but just on the picture here, looks like it would have less water damage, but have similar views, at least at the, you know, towards the Pepperell Cove side. Is that the neighboring house? But it's not the neighboring one, which is a tiny lot, but it's the next one up. It goes across both sides of Moore's Island. And that house, where is that? Because we had all of the assessments here. Here they are. So that one is 33. Right, so that one, the total valuation right now is at 2.2 million. And so if that was not reduced by 20%, Then, I'm just wondering, right, I'm just wondering whether, when we're looking at these, whether they're comparable to each other, whether I should mentally add 20% to all of them. [3:00:25] Leslie Wood: Which lot was that one? Mary, which parcel is it that we're talking about? Let's see, it's 33. 33, there's more than one. [Graham Lewis: 27 slash 33.] Eight more is that island? Yeah. Yeah? Okay, 2.29. [3:00:35] Graham Lewis: Am I right with that one? [3:00:37] Leslie Wood: I just wanted to just, I wasn't quite following. [3:00:38] Jonathan Sobel: Your analysis of that property is correct. It is the largest lot on Moore's Island Lane. It contains considerable buildable property, meaning more than 100 feet back from the high, the HAT, the high tide, and it has similar views of Pepperell Cove and up Chauncey Creek, right? So your analysis is correct. If you took the 20%, you would be comparing these properties that are not comparable. They do not suffer the same type of damage from three sides, and they have buildable area left on their property in addition to [3:01:24] Graham Lewis: the existing house. I'm thinking in my mind, if that was not reduced by 20%, it would mean that I don't believe it is, but I cannot mean in my mind is that not taking into effect, into account the bad parts of the risks of the land, the flood and the easements, where Mr. Sobel's property would have been $2.5 million, that Mr. Sobel's property would sell for $2.5 million, whereas the 8 Moore Island Lane with more buildable area, less and well, okay, I'm not doing the flood damage part, but more buildable area and a much bigger lot would only be 2.2 million, and you would think that would be comparable. I assume it's also a bigger house, is it not, because the [3:02:18] Chris Lyon: building is, yes, 1.5 acres and the house is 2800 and a newer house too, right? So [3:02:30] Graham Lewis: So just that particular, those two together don't match in my mind unless that one also got reduced. [3:02:39] Chris Lyon: I don't think that has been reduced. I can't see in the system I am in right now. [3:02:47] Graham Lewis: So that to me seems like some level of discrepancy. But I don't know, do you guys see what I'm saying there? Maybe. [3:02:59] Leslie Wood: I'm not sure it's relevant to what we're being asked to do, but it is always frustrating when you can't make it all add up. [3:03:07] Sally Coco: I think we have the information to really assess that. [3:03:14] Jonathan Sobel: If I may chair, I believe that when placed as a comparable, there is a discrepancy between the evaluation assessment for the Charlesworth property and ours, such that ours again appears to be over assessed. asked. [3:03:31] Leslie Wood: I hear you, but I think we have to be very careful here. With the exception of one person in this room, none of us are assessors, and it's actually not what we're being asked to do. And had somebody decided to do an assessment which included in that property, it would have been submitted as evidence. It's not for the board to submit evidence. It's for us to assess what it is that you've all said to us. So we have to be a bit careful. There's a difference between a clarification question, which I think Mary started with, yeah, to try and understand something, and us trying to be assessors, and I don't [3:04:01] Jonathan Sobel: think we're trying to be assessors. Yeah, no, I understand. I did include that in the comparable section. You put all of the properties there. Yeah, so that you [3:04:12] Leslie Wood: could do the land value per acre. That was the reason that you did it. Understood, thank you. Okay, are we ready to do the board's review? All right, so this part, the three of us will talk to each other and you will listen to us. That's how [3:04:29] Mike Carey: this works. So I think probably the best thing to do now is to kind of close the record, and then that at this point, if there's any other questions you all need, this is a good time to get it, because after the record is closed, then you're [3:04:40] Leslie Wood: just deliberating. Have we got any of us got any other questions? I am, I don't have some questions. No, that case, how do we close the record? Do I tell you to close the record? Close the record. We don't do this every week, okay? We just need to make sure we got it right. Yep, you got it. All right. [3:05:08] Graham Lewis: I want to make one comment, because the hairs on my neck go up whenever somebody says that the taxpayer did not provide an appraisal or a, because I have been at many of these meetings on both sides of the table, and sometimes an appraisal is offered and it said that the appraisal isn't credible. Sometimes a realtor market valuation is offered and it's always said that the market valuation is incredible, you know, and it and to me that and I know Mr. so Bell did a lot of work on this. I am trusting his judgment as much as an appraiser or a real estate agent. Just so you know in future sessions that when you bring that up, it makes me squirm, because people are always saying, oh, you should have brought something different. So that's historically, you look at all these meetings, it always happens, so that bothers me. So [3:06:15] Leslie Wood: We have to go back to the town's appraisal, the town's assessed value, and we have to look at the data that's been provided and decide whether or not that gives us credible reasons to say that it is not, that the original assessment was not correct. Have I said that correctly? Are we all aligned about what we're trying to do here? Secondly, that whilst a lot of information was presented about easements and usable parts of land and things like that, there was quite a big body of information that we all tried to understand for quite a while. Whilst it's very helpful for background information, it's not actually relevant because all of it happened a long time ago, in some cases 1880 in one case, but more practically at least before you purchased the property. So the easement was already there when the property was purchased, etc., etc., etc. So this is not new. [3:07:22] Graham Lewis: I will disagree with that comment. An easement being there is already factored into purchase price. But it does, I don't know, but I would guess that it does potentially affect future sales price. If you have two identical properties next to each other, would you pay the same for one with an easement as one without an easement? [3:07:48] Leslie Wood: Would you consistently pay more or less for each of the two properties, perhaps based on that easement? [3:07:54] Sally Coco: But that is one of the reasons why there is a percentage of reduction. [3:07:58] Graham Lewis: Right. I completely understand that. Yeah. Yeah, so I think they did take into account with that 20% reduction all of the negatives that Mr. Sobel explained to us. [3:08:12] Leslie Wood: Which is perhaps more eloquently saying the way where I started, which is that whilst they're real, they're taken account for, so therefore we don't really need to discuss all of that part of it, because it's neither a plus nor a minus. It's an is. Is, yeah, as you say, it's always been there, or it's been there for a long time, and it's been [3:08:33] Graham Lewis: taken account of. Well, the clarification was that it was taken account for. He got the 20 reduction. [3:08:39] Leslie Wood: So we have some information from Mr. Savelle and we have some information from the town looking at these various different properties, and maybe we do one as a separate item. I apologize, I know I'm shuffling paper here, but I am looking for something. There's the one with behalf sheet. Right here. It's E. I have it. There it is. It's underneath the other one. So let's take this one first, maybe kind of by elimination, work our way towards what is incredible. So this first one here on Moores Island, which is the small lot that's not buildable, leaky, which is much lower. [3:09:47] Graham Lewis: Are you talking about the one on the little piece of paper? [3:09:50] Leslie Wood: Yeah, which is one of the items that Mr. Sabell put forward to us. And when he put it forward, he said, I know you'll be shocked as well as I was, et cetera, et cetera. I think it's like apples and oranges. [Graham Lewis: Yes, I agree.] Okay, so we can just ignore that one. Not ignore. Of course, you can't ignore it. It's there, but it's not something that is relevant to what we're trying to sort out. And then the other one is the one at 132 Pepperell Road, which is much closer in terms of the type of house it is, et cetera, et cetera, to these ones that came from the town. So what do we think about 132 Pepperell Road? I know that the lot size is significantly smaller. Do we think that one is a [3:10:51] Sally Coco: reasonable comparison? I in Mr. Sobel's own words he agreed that this cannot be a comparable as I'm looking at placement Purple Road is a busy road Moore's Island is way off the I mean if I keep coming back to if someone offered me exactly identical structures seasonal or year-round one of them situated on Pepperell Road and one of them situated down on the end of a quiet island I wouldn't even have to guess I would take the Sobel property and again I mean I know I'm talking I'm not speaking factually here but I don't see them as the least bit comparable in that in that one is in the thick of things and one is isolated away which is something that people seek. I'm going to assume, Mr. Sobel, that you sought the quiet and the, I can't even think of the right words I wanna say, but difficult to assess and appraise, but there is a huge difference in lifestyle between being up where there are sidewalks and traffic going up Route 103 three versus being down on Moore's Island where one can face out to the river and pretend no one else exists. So again, there's not a dollar value, but I think if you asked any individual, would you want to live up on Prepper Road or would you want to live on an island, I'm not saying I'm not saying people would necessarily choose either one, but I think they're extremely distinct. [3:12:59] Leslie Wood: If I'm correct, the main reason that this one was presented at the time was because of the arm's length sale being very different from the appraised value. That's what it kind of says on here once you start reading it a little bit. [3:13:12] Sally Coco: But I'm not sure what relevance. [3:13:15] Leslie Wood: That's a fair comment. I'm not sure either. It's not. We'll come back again to apples and oranges. It's a very different kind of apples and oranges. [3:13:22] Graham Lewis: No, the reason this one was presented, it was the only sale after April 1st that was in the area. [3:13:29] Leslie Wood: And based on sale price, in Mr. Savelle's mind, it led him to question perhaps that the land and that the valuation was wrong. But that's not, as you just said, part of what we're trying to do here. [3:13:44] Graham Lewis: And we do have the, what was it, one of the ones over here. Isn't there one right next to it? 132, there was 134. I don't know what that's, that was just, that sale was shortly before April 1st, but I don't know what the appraisal of that is. This evidence doesn't say what the current assessment is, and that home was just what it sold for. Would it be? Yeah, but a home torn down doesn't make a difference in this. Is now when somebody buys a property for 1.5 million, they're not paying 1.5 million only for the lot. A lot of that is for the house, because if the house Isn't there, these lots are unbuildable because of minimum lot sizes and distance from the, you know, the hundred, you know, set back from the hundred foot mark and all of that. So, and you know, how big is a footprint? Does anyone know? Does this zone also have, maybe they don't have the 6% coverage limitation that they do in my neighborhood, but. [3:14:51] Leslie Wood: Let's be careful not to become appraisers again here. [3:14:54] Graham Lewis: That's not appraiser, that's a planning board, right. [3:14:58] Chris Lyon: Which I can't speak to. [3:15:00] Graham Lewis: But when houses are, when these houses are purchased and demolished, they're not paying only for the land. Because they need a building there to be able to build another property. In that location, and so that value of that building is probably more than the building was worth with a lot of these houses that were old and probably even yours, but yours is from the 1800s, but that's neither here nor there. But I don't take that $1.5 million price as being the price only of the lot, because the lot without an existing house on it would be worth less. It would be unbuildable, and it would be down in that $80,000 range of the other, potentially. It would be unbuildable, I don't know The specific. So if I, if I [3:15:52] Mike Carey: think it's there's if I can you when you when you address the unnumbered lot first you focused you kind of came down to the question that the law requires which is that credible evidence to show that the town was manifestly wrong, is for 133 Pepperell, for all of the reasons you each have mentioned, has Mr. Sobel shown that this is credible evidence, that the town was manifestly wrong in valuing his property? No. No. [3:16:30] Graham Lewis: Well, I think it could be considered evidence, but I don't think you can prove it with just [3:16:34] Leslie Wood: one property. That's the problem. We end up in the same... [3:16:36] Graham Lewis: Because you can always have outliers. [3:16:38] Leslie Wood: If anything, I would say... [3:16:39] Mike Carey: So two, don't think it's credible. I mean, I'm so glad in a way where you started where you did because you shared what you view as credible evidence and that you view Mr. Sobel's testimony as credible in a way you would an appraiser. [3:16:53] Graham Lewis: Right, and I would an appraiser and I would a real estate agent. [3:16:58] Mike Carey: And so that's really, that kind of gets to your role as a fact finder. What's credible is, you know, credible is one of those words which is more of a gut sometimes. There's some language in the law but so anyway that's but here we've got a [3:17:12] Leslie Wood: waterfront property very close 1.8 rounded numbers total assessment for [3:17:18] Mike Carey: 0.2 of an acre right so this alone is not credible evidence for one of you and for two of you it's not credible in any event is there other evidence that he's provided that is credible evidence or can kind of come together to yes it's [3:17:31] Graham Lewis: It's this that we've labeled F, which shows the different Moores Island Lane properties and the land value assessment section. And if 12 Moores Island Lane is assessed at, just to make it a round number, 1.6 million, and it was reduced by 20%, that means its non-reduced assessment would be 2 million. If these other lots were not reduced, then that means it was, in essence, based on an assessment that's higher than any of the other lots, even the ones bigger than it. Does that make sense? [3:18:18] Sally Coco: I don't follow you. I'm sorry. [3:18:20] Graham Lewis: So if you see this... [3:18:22] Sally Coco: Which table are you... [3:18:25] Graham Lewis: So the top table. Okay. And the first line says 12 Moore's Island land, value $1,642,200. And if I just round that to $1.6 million, I'm a math person, so I know that before a 20% reduction, that would be $2 million, because $2 million minus 20% would be $1.6 million. So if these others were not reduced by 20%, percent, then that means the $2 million for the location and the lot size, not counting the detriments, is what it would have been assessed at if it had not had the negatives. These other properties, every single one is quite a bit less than $2 million. The only one that's even upwards near $2 million is the 8 Moores Island lane that's more than double the size. [3:19:21] Leslie Wood: Right. There are some assumptions in all of that. [3:19:29] Graham Lewis: But are you able to look up the property tax cards quickly to see? [3:19:32] Chris Lyon: No, I cannot see if they've been reduced or what's reduced and what's not on this. [3:19:38] Sally Coco: My problem with, I hear what you're saying, but my problem with that is that we don't have the information about each of the other properties as to why these determinations were made. [3:19:57] Graham Lewis: I understand. With the information that we got here, it seems to me that his was $2 million and the [3:20:06] Leslie Wood: others are much less. This was $1.6 million. [3:20:09] Graham Lewis: No, but he got a reduction because of the factors of his property. [3:20:11] Leslie Wood: We know that, but this is the information that we were given. Right. It's $1.6. We have to be careful not to extrapolate too much. [3:20:21] Sally Coco: Because we don't know if the others were adjusted. [3:20:25] Leslie Wood: Mathematically, you need to know all of it or none of it. Right, you know it was also presented for a different reason, but we'll just put that to the side for a minute. I [3:20:38] Graham Lewis: thought it was presented for that reason, it was [3:20:41] Leslie Wood: presented to compare Moore's Island assessed values to create land value per acre, which is the second table, which is why the second table exists. The first table is created so you could do the math to get the second table. It wasn't presented as a comparable assessment from an assessment point of view. It was to get the land value per acre. But it still was given to us, so I don't disagree with what you've just said. I'm just saying that we just need to be careful not to go and do deep dives in different directions, but to take it, if those deep dives could or should have happened, they should or could have happened before today. Unfortunately, [3:21:27] Sally Coco: and at the same time, looking at that second table, I'm thinking Mr. Sobel is darn lucky he's only being charged 1.6. [3:21:38] Leslie Wood: I'm not going to comment on that because that also is out of our remits. [3:21:44] Mary Tron: If you can do that with this one, yeah, per acre is meaningless, so it is a bit, yeah. [3:21:52] Leslie Wood: But it was nonetheless what was presented, so we have to just say. So where we end up is that it leaves us with questions, that table, no doubt, but they're not questions we can answer. I [3:22:12] Graham Lewis: agree. [3:22:15] Mary Tron: I don't feel great about what I've just said, for what's worth, but I do agree. [3:22:21] Leslie Wood: Are we, is that, am I missing something? [3:22:24] Mike Carey: Something, well, do you have, is that an observation or is that a consensus that there's no credible evidence that the town is manifestly wrong? Let's get to [3:22:35] Leslie Wood: that, because we were, I think we were one step before that, because we were just on this one and saying that we just can't find a way to use that, just a point of [3:22:42] Sally Coco: order. May I ask, do we in fact need to go through each exhibit to discuss them, or can we jump to a conclusion? [3:22:48] Mike Carey: No, I mean, if it's, if when you, first of all, there's a little more language for manifestly wrong. It's one of those legal words that's really short that can be really hard. So there's a, the court goes a little further, if that's helpful. But if you decide as an individual matter that no, there isn't credible evidence that the town is manifestly wrong, you don't need to go through each one. You could, you need to have some explanation for why there's no credible evidence in your view, but no, you don't need to go through each one. So [3:23:23] Leslie Wood: with this one, I think what we're saying, this is that it's incomplete, the evidence provided is incomplete, and that we could go in directions, but that's not ours to do. The last exhibit that we were presented with came from the town, so it feels a bit backwards doing it, but we were presented with it, so we have to [3:23:43] Mike Carey: look at it, I think. Well, you don't have to look at it to see whether the applicant has is shown has, because it's his burden to bring stuff to look at, so that you shouldn't disregard it if there's value there, but really it's his burden to show that the town's wrong. Okay, thank you for the [3:24:03] Leslie Wood: clarification. I don't think that we need to discuss this one further. I'm saying that very [3:24:18] Graham Lewis: cautiously. I don't see how I can say that it's not that the town is, but what's the manifestly wrong? I think I don't see how we can find something else [3:24:35] Leslie Wood: given what's here. I'm going that direction too. I've tried to find it, yeah. [3:24:43] Graham Lewis: Well, they said that they did take into account the detriments in the problem, in all the things that Mr. Sobel listed in his appeal, but the easements and the flood zones and all of that were taken to account specifically for his property, so it's kind of hard to argue with that if that's if it since that happened, so sorry. [3:25:17] Leslie Wood: So I think that what we're saying is that the taxpayer did not provide us with sufficient credible evidence to change the assessor's value of his property. I'm sure you'll have a much more eloquent version of it from a legal point of view, but from us three right now, if I just said something that you both agree with, yes. [3:25:44] Mike Carey: Can I ask, so what I've what I've done is prepared just kind of a basic order with just ask a couple questions if there's anything to it's just kind of have you know, so one of them for example, the taxpayer has not presented credible evidence of value to impeach the town's assessment. You just told me that, so I don't need to go through, I'm just going to do to see if there's anything I need to I can back into that for your I mean you'll review it again as last time before you vote on the language. But I can I can come up with something based on what you've said. Okay, what should happen is you should have you should take you should somebody should make a motion and have it seconded and take a vote, and so that's the decision, and then based upon what you've deliberated and I was taking copious notes, I'll go back and make that proposed order. You're saying the motion is our decision. That's right, that's right, and then I'm gonna put up an argument they put up a determination based upon I heard. You say and you're [3:27:10] Sally Coco: going to tell me whether or not I got it right. Well then may I move that this board has found that the applicant failed to produce credible evidence to show that the town's assessment was incorrect and [3:27:42] Graham Lewis: the appeal is denied. Yes, got [3:27:57] Leslie Wood: it. Nope. [3:28:09] Mike Carey: Just your vote. So in terms of getting this into a decision for you, I could do it tonight, it would probably take me 30 to 60 minutes. Last time I think what happened, you called a meeting and I came in by zoom, which seems cost-efficient, and as long as you're together I don't need to be here. [3:28:40] Graham Lewis: That works fine for me. [3:28:42] Leslie Wood: Fine, the last time we'll do it the same this time. [3:28:44] Mike Carey: Okay, and I know so I'll do you know I understand that Nikki is out now, is okay, she's out until next week, next week, okay, well I can I can connect with her and maybe we'll figure out kind of something for scheduling the next meeting that [3:29:02] Chris Lyon: Sounds good, thank you. [3:29:12] Leslie Wood: Very much for providing all of this huge amount of data and walking us through it very carefully and very professionally. It really, I know you haven't got the outcome that you probably wanted, but I just wanted to at least say that to you. That's very kind of you and thank Can. [3:29:35] Graham Lewis: We hand all these back in? [3:29:38] Leslie Wood: Yes. I think this all goes back. I really don't want all of this in my house, that's for sure. Yeah. [3:29:45] Mike Carey: So, yeah, why don't we save, let's save one copy for maybe Chris can take a copy of everything. And then I will, if I can, I take some of the copies of the plans so that I have a complete copy of everything? Yes. You can have all of my set. [3:30:02] Mary Tron: You can have all of this. [3:30:10] Leslie Wood: Oh, I apologise, and the meeting is now adjourned.