Christopher Smith d/b/a Solar Fields LLC v. Board of Assessors of the Town of Hatfield (September 11, 2014)

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
APPELLATE TAX BOARD

CHRISTOPHER SMITH d/b/a  	 v.     BOARD OF ASSESSORS OF 
SOLAR FIELDS LLC 				   THE TOWN OF HATFIELD
	

Docket No. F319550			 	   Promulgated:
						 	   September 11, 2014

								
	This is an appeal filed under the formal procedure pursuant to G.L. c. 58A, § 7 and G.L. c. 59, §§ 64 and 65,  from the refusal of the appellee, the Board of Assessors of the Town of Hatfield ("appellee" or "assessors"), to abate tax on certain real estate owned by and assessed to Christopher Smith d/b/a Solar Fields LLC ("appellant") under G.L. c. 59, §§ 11 and 38 for fiscal year 2013.
	Commissioner Rose ("Presiding Commissioner") heard this appeal and in accordance with G.L. c. 58A, § 1A and 831 CMR 1.20, issued a single-member decision for the appellee.
	These findings of fact and report are made at the request of the appellant pursuant to G.L. c. 58A, § 13 and 831 CMR 1.32.

	Christopher Smith, pro se, for the appellant.
David Martel, Esq. for the appellee.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND REPORT
	On January 1, 2012, the appellant was the owner of an approximately 4-acre parcel of land improved with an antique-type, single-family dwelling, located at 9 Prospect Street in Hatfield, identified for assessment purposes as parcel number 222-93-0 ("subject property"). The dwelling was built in 1905 and, according to the subject property's property record card, contains 2,647 square feet of living space with eight rooms, including four bedrooms and one bathroom. A free-standing tobacco barn also sits on the subject property. For fiscal year 2013, the assessors originally valued the subject property at $318,500 and assessed a tax thereon, at the rate of $12.30 per thousand, in the amount of $3,998.18, in accordance with G.L. c. 59, § 57C, including a Community Preservation Act ("CPA") surcharge of $80.63. The appellant paid all tax timely, without incurring interest.
On January 21, 2013, in accordance with G.L. c. 59, § 59 the appellant applied for an abatement, which the assessors partially granted on April 10, 2013, reducing the assessed value to $197,200 and the resulting tax to $2,425.56, including an abatement of $44.76 of CPA surcharge. Of the abated value, the assessors attributed $35,500 to the dwelling, $4,000 to the barn, and the remaining $157,700 to the land, including $5,400 of value attributable to the frontage in excess of the minimum amount required under zoning bylaws. On May 28, 2013, in accordance with G.L. c. 59, § 64, the appellant timely filed an appeal with the Appellate Tax Board ("Board"). The Presiding Commissioner found and ruled, based on these facts, that the Board had jurisdiction over this appeal. 
	Hatfield is a rural, agricultural community in Hampshire County, approximately 25 miles north of Springfield.  The subject property was purchased by the appellant at a foreclosure auction on December 12, 2012 for $215,000, without a right to prior inspection. The dwelling is unoccupied as the appellant testified that there is significant physical damage to it, including: a collapse of a portion of the first floor into the basement; a partial collapse of the stone foundation in two locations; roof leakage; and extensive mold growth. The appellant substantiated these claims at the hearing with pictures that displayed the extent of the damage. 
The original property record card for fiscal year 2013 listed the subject property's condition as "B" with a "poor" depreciation factor of 56 percent. For purposes of fiscal year 2012, James King, an employee of Patriot Properties, a consultant under contract to the assessors, had physically examined the subject property on August 4, 2011, and changed the applicable depreciation factor from a "fair" rating with a 45 percent depreciation factor to a "poor" rating with a 67 percent depreciation factor. Another employee of Patriot Properties, Christopher Keefe, reviewed the depreciation schedule for all properties in Hatfield. Finding a 67 percent depreciation factor for the subject property to be excessive, the factor was revised to 56 percent. Subsequent to the appellant's application for abatement, the subject property was re-inspected by Mr. King on April 5, 2013, at which time it was deemed uninhabitable. Mr. King revised the condition to "dilapidated," noting that it was structurally unsound, and raised the depreciation factor to 90 percent. 
	The appellant offered into evidence at the hearing a quote from Associated Building Wreckers, Inc., a demolition contractor in Springfield, stating a projected cost to demolish the dwelling of $21,000, plus additional costs of $11,500 to dispose of asbestos within the dwelling, and $2,400 to demolish the tobacco barn. The appellant argued that the costs of demolition should be deducted from the property value as a negative influence, because a potential owner would place less of a value on the property with an uninhabitable dwelling than if it were sold as a vacant lot. In support of the appellant's position, Greg Dibrindisi, a licensed real estate agent with experience in the Springfield area, testified that potential buyers would generally view the dwelling as having no value and instead view it as a detriment to the property, given its associated liability issues. 
The appellant did not offer any evidence from a licensed professional as to the potential for repair of the dwelling to a habitable state. The appellant offered no evidence of sales of comparable properties which had dwellings in similar states of disrepair versus sales of comparable lots which were vacant, which might have supported his argument. Furthermore, as no one from Associated Building Wreckers, Inc. was available to testify, the Presiding Commissioner found the quote of potential demolition costs to be unsubstantiated hearsay and did not give it any weight. Accordingly, the Presiding Commissioner found that the appellant had not met his burden to substantiate that the subject property had been assessed in excess of its fair cash value. The Presiding Commissioner found that the assessors had properly taken into account the structural defects in the dwelling by valuing it using a 90 percent depreciation factor. 
	The appellant also challenged the assessors' imposition of an "excess land" valuation for frontage in excess of the minimum frontage required by the zoning bylaws, which for the appellant's lot was 200 feet. As the appellant's lot had 335 feet of frontage, the excess 135 feet was separately valued at $40 per foot. The appellant argued that this policy harmed properties, such as his, where the frontage exceeded the 200 foot minimum, yet where the frontage was less than 400 feet and thus not sufficient to support subdivision into a second saleable lot. As the appellant recognized, the assessment of excess frontage is a common practice among communities in Massachusetts, reflecting the value inherent in additional frontage, regardless of whether a lot can be fully subdivided. He cited the sale of three adjacent, vacant properties in the same development in Hatfield to support his contention that excess frontage has no effect on property values. These substantially similar properties, ranging from 1.03 acres to 1.12 acres, were all sold within $100 of the same sale price, but one of the properties had 193.1 feet of frontage, while the others had 204.3 feet and 203.6 feet, respectively. The Presiding Commissioner found a difference spanning ten or eleven feet in frontage -- or less than five percent -- among comparable properties was not persuasive evidence that there was no basis to assess the subject property's 135 feet of excess street frontage.  
Finally, the appellant challenged the assessors' increase of the amount assessed per acre of land in the neighborhood where the subject property is located for fiscal year 2013 to $3.05 per square foot from $2.65 per square foot as assessed in fiscal year 2012. The assessors offered evidence of three recent sales of real estate in the neighborhood to justify the increased unit value. The Presiding Commissioner found that the sales supported the assessors' increase and that the appellant did not offer any credible evidence to rebut the assessor's valuation. 
On the basis of these findings, the Presiding Commissioner found and ruled that the appellant did not meet his burden to show that the subject property was overvalued and decided this appeal in favor of the appellee. 
OPINION
Assessors are required to assess real estate at its fair cash value. G.L. c. 59, § 38. Fair cash value is defined as the price on which a willing seller and a willing buyer will agree if both of them are fully informed and under no compulsion. Boston Gas Co. v. Assessors of Boston, 334 Mass. 549, 566 (1956).
The appellant has the burden to prove its right to an abatement of tax and that the subject property has a lower value than that which was assessed. Schlaiker v. Assessors of Great Barrington, 365 Mass. 243, 245 (1974). An assessment is presumed by the Board to be valid unless the taxpayer sustains his burden of proving otherwise. Id. The taxpayer may prove overvaluation by "exposing flaws or errors in the assessors' method of valuation, or by introducing affirmative evidence of value which undermines the assessors' valuation." Donlon v. Assessors of Holliston, 389 Mass. 848, 855 (1983). 
A taxpayer "does not conclusively establish a right to abatement" merely by showing that one element of the property is overvalued as "'the tax on a parcel of land and the building thereon is one tax... although for statistical purposes they may be valued separately.'" Taylor v. Assessors of Marshfield, Mass. ATB Findings of Fact and Reports 2010-848, 858, quoting Assessors of Brookline v. Prudential Insurance Co., 310 Mass. 300, 317 (1941). Instead, the proper inquiry is "whether the assessment for the parcel of real estate, including both the land and the structures thereon, is excessive. The component parts, on which that single assessment is laid, are each open to inquiry and revision by the appellate tribunal in reaching the conclusion whether that single assessment is excessive." Massachusetts General Hospital v. Belmont, 238 Mass. 396, 403 (1921); Taylor, Mass. ATB Findings of Fact and Reports 2010 at 858-859. 
The appellant and the assessors agreed that the dwelling situated on the subject property was uninhabitable in its current state. However, the appellant did not introduce any evidence, in the form of comparable sales or otherwise, to show that the total assessed value of the subject property of $197,200, as abated, exceeded the subject property's fair cash value. The appellant offered the testimony of a local real estate agent to support his claim that the dwelling itself was worthless, as well as a quote from a local contractor regarding the costs necessary to raze it, which the Board found to be hearsay and gave no weight. However, as the Board has previously concluded, uninhabitable is not the same as unsalvageable and some value may still be attributed to the dwelling as long as the assessors have properly taken into account the extent of any damage. See Filippone v. Assessors of Newton, Mass. ATB Findings of Fact and Reports 1995-216, 220-21. 
The appellant offered no analysis of comparable properties to rebut the assessors' valuation and establish that the fair cash value of the subject property was lower than as assessed. Without such an analysis, "the appellant's claim was merely a bare assertion that contained neither probative nor credible evidence of the subject propert[y's] fair market [value] and thus failed to meet his burden of proving fair market [value] for the subject propert[y] that w[as] less than [its] assessed [value]." Ashkouri v. Assessors of Newton, Mass. ATB Findings of Fact and Reports 2013-1130, 1135. 
Based on the evidence presented, the Presiding Commissioner found and ruled that the appellant did not meet his burden of proving that the subject property's assessed value exceeded its fair cash value for fiscal year 2013. Accordingly, the Presiding Commissioner decided this appeal in favor of the appellee.				

 THE APPELLATE TAX BOARD


                      By: _______________________________
 James D. Rose, Commissioner 
   
A true copy,


Attest: _____________________________
  	              Clerk of the Board

ATB 2014-588