F298967; F304188; F308997; F298963; F298954; F298965; F304180; F309001; F298951; F304202; F309004; F298959; F304200; F309002; F311168

Texte intégral

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
APPELLATE TAX BOARD

WUERTH REALTY TRUST v. BOARD OF ASSESSORS OF THE TOWN OF EDGARTOWN
Docket Nos.: F298967 (FY 2008)
F304188 (FY 2009)
F308997 (FY 2010)

WILLIAM BOATNER REILY, III v. BOARD OF ASSESSORS OF THE TOWN OF EDGARTOWN
Docket No.: F298963 (FY 2008)
CHAPEDA HILL CORP. v. BOARD OF ASSESSORS OF THE TOWN OF EDGARTOWN
Docket No.: F298954 (FY 2008)
EDWARD CROWLEY and v. BOARD OF ASSESSORS OF THE SARAH BRADBURY RORER TOWN OF EDGARTOWN

Docket Nos.: F298965 (FY 2008)
F304180 (FY 2009)
F309001 (FY 2010)

MARK L. and NEIL D. COHEN v. BOARD OF ASSESSORS OF THE
and DIANE ZACK TOWN OF EDGARTOWN

Docket Nos.: F298951 (FY 2008)
F304202 (FY 2009)
F309004 (FY 2010)

JPBK HOLDING-MA LLC v. BOARD OF ASSESSORS OF THE
TOWN OF EDGARTOWN
Docket Nos.: F298959 (FY 2008)
F304200 (FY 2009)
F309002 (FY 2010)
F311168 (FY 2011)

Promulgated:
November 27, 2013

These are appeals filed under the formal procedure, pursuant to G.L. c. 58A, § 7 and c. 59, §§ 64 and 65, from the refusal of the Board of Assessors of the Town of Edgartown (the "assessors" or the "appellee") to abate taxes on certain real estate located in Edgartown, owned by and assessed to the above-captioned appellants under G.L. c. 59, §§ 11 and 38, for various fiscal years from 2008 to 2011.
Commissioner Egan heard and materially participated in the deliberations of these appeals which Chairman Hammond and Commissioners Scharaffa and Rose decided for the appellee.
The Appellate Tax Board (the "Board"), on its own motion under G.L. c. 58A, § 13 and 831 CMR 1.32, promulgates these findings of fact and report simultaneously with the decisions in these appeals.

Donald P. Quinn, P.C., Esq. and Danielle Justo, Esq. for the appellants.

Ellen M. Hutchinson, Esq. for the appellee.

FINDINGS OF FACT AND REPORT
Introduction
These findings of fact and report involve fifteen appeals by six appellants of the assessments on six residential properties located in Edgartown on Martha's Vineyard over various fiscal years from 2008 to 2011. The Board consolidated the appeals into one Findings of Fact and Report because the same attorneys brought them against the same assessors who used the same counsel to defend them against all of the appellants. Moreover, the parties tried and the Board heard these appeals consecutively, and each of the appeals used the same real estate valuation expert and essentially the same valuation methodology with many of the same purportedly comparable-sale properties. The Board conducted one view which included each of the subject properties, the neighborhoods, and the purportedly comparable-sale properties. The Board, however, issued separate decisions relating to each of the subject properties.
The six properties that are the subject of these appeals are referred to herein by their corresponding street address or, in the proper context, as the "subject property." The following table sets forth those street addresses along with the corresponding appellants, docket numbers, and fiscal years at issue.

Street Address Appellants FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011

44 Green Hollow Rd. Trustees of Wuerth Realty Trust F298967 F304188 F308997 n/a
35 Green Hollow Rd. William Boatner Reily, III F298963 n/a n/a n/a
31 Tower Hill Rd. Chapeda Hill Corp. F298954 n/a n/a n/a
18 Menamsha Ln. Edward & Sarah Rorer F298965 F304180 F309001 n/a
52 Witchwood Ln. Mark & Neil Cohen & Diane Zack F298951 F304202 F309004 n/a
48 Witchwood Ln. JPBK Holding-MA, LLC F298959 F304200 F309002 F311168

Collectively, these properties are referred to as the "subject properties." The following table sets forth some basic descriptive and assessment information about each of the subject properties for the corresponding fiscal years at issue, which will be augmented, infra.

Street Address
ApproxAcres SF Living Area of Buildings
Water- Front
Pier or Dock FY2008 Assessed Value $ FY2009 Assessed Value $ FY2010 Assessed Value $ FY 2011 Assessed Value $
44 Green Hollow Rd. 1.14 1,676 yes yes 10,789,600 10,767,000 10,144,700 n/a 35 Green Hollow Rd. 2.01 3,619 yes yes 11,404,800 n/a n/a n/a 31 Tower Hill Rd. 1.70 4,419 yes yes 12,044,300 n/a n/a n/a 18 Menamsha Ln. 2.77 5,828 yes yes 15,558,700 15,371,900 14,717,800 n/a 52 Witchwood Ln. 1.50 n/a yes yes 9,036,100 9,036,100 8,713,500 n/a 48 Witchwood Ln. 3.00 14,414 yes shared off site 15,493,400 15,680,600 15,368,900 15,368,900
The four-to-six-day hearings for each of the subject properties took place at the Board's offices in Boston. The one-day view of the subject properties, the neighborhoods, and the purportedly comparable-sale properties was conducted at the various sites in Edgartown. At the hearings of these appeals, the appellants called multiple witnesses, including in most appeals: a duly qualified expert land surveyor, Douglas Hoehn; a duly qualified real estate valuation expert, Paul Hartel; and Edgartown's Principal Assessor, JoAnn Resendes. The following table summarizes the witnesses who testified with respect to each of the subject properties.

Street Address
Douglas Hoehn Paul Hartel JoAnn Resendes Other Witness
44 Green Hollow Rd. Yes Yes Yes Susan Funnell
35 Green Hollow Rd. Yes Yes Yes No
31 Tower Hill Rd. No Yes Yes No
18 Menamsha Ln. No Yes Yes No
52 Witchwood Ln. Yes Yes Yes No
48 Witchwood Ln. Yes Yes Yes James Held

The appellants also introduced between 37 and 95 exhibits in each of the appeals. These exhibits generally included, among other things: various jurisdictional documents; plans of land; deeds; maps; zoning and wetlands protection bylaws; LA-3 property sales reports; photographs; property record cards; private covenants, contracts, agreements, leases, mortgages, and bylaws; and the real estate valuation expert's summary appraisal report, updated or corrected materials, and analyses. The appellants also provided the Board with Post-Hearing Memoranda and/or Requests for Findings of Fact in each of the appeals.
For their part, the assessors did not offer any witnesses except for the hearing related to the fiscal year 2008 appeal of the 31 Tower Hill Road property in which Ms. Resendes, Edgartown's Principal Assessor, testified not only for the appellant but also for the assessors. In most of the appeals, the assessors introduced various jurisdictional documents, and in some of the appeals, they also entered into evidence other varying documents, including, deeds, photographs, grants of easement, maps, license agreements, mortgages, and plans. The assessors additionally provided the Board with Post-Hearing Briefs.
Based on all of the evidence, including the Board's view of the subject properties, the neighborhoods, and the purportedly comparable-sale properties, as well as reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, the Board made the following findings of fact.
Assessments and Jurisdiction
The relevant assessment information for each of the subject properties for the fiscal years at issue is contained in the following tables.
48 Witchwood Lane
Fiscal
Year Parcel
Assessment Improvements Assessment Total Assessment Tax Rate per $1,000 Tax
Assessed

2008 $ 9,474,900 $ 6,018,500 $15,493,400 $2.73 $43,557.70
2009 $ 9,474,900 $ 6,205,700 $15,680,600 $2.91 $46,990.74
2010 $ 9,163,200 $ 6,205,700 $15,368,900 $3.09 $48,905.33
2011 $ 9,163,200 $ 6,205,700 $15,368,900 $3.40 $53,811.69

44 Green Hollow Road

Fiscal
Year Parcel
Assessment Improvements Assessment Total Assessment Tax Rate per $1,000 Tax
Assessed

2008 $10,489,700 $299,900 $10,789,600 $2.73 $30,331.09
2009 $10,489,700 $277,500 $10,767,200 $2.91 $32,263.80
2010 $ 9,867,200 $277,500 $10,144,700 $3.09 $32,278.26

18 Menamsha Avenue
Fiscal
Year Parcel
Assessment Improvements Assessment Total Assessment Tax Rate per $1,000 Tax
Assessed

2008 $11,737,200 $ 3,821,500 $15,558,700 $2.73 $43,741.32
2009 $11,777,600 $ 3,594,300 $15,371,900 $2.91 $46,065.47
2010 $11,123,500 $ 3,594,300 $14,717,800 $3.09 $46,833.07

35 Green Hollow Road

Fiscal
Year Parcel
Assessment Improvements Assessment Total Assessment Tax Rate per $1,000 Tax
Assessed

2008 $10,632,600 $772,200 $11,404,800 $2.73 $32,060.96

31 Tower Hill Road

Fiscal
Year Parcel
Assessment Improvements Assessment Total Assessment Tax Rate per $1,000 Tax
Assessed

2008 $11,187,200 $857,100 $12,044,300 $2.73 $33,859.18

52 Witchwood Lane

Fiscal
Year Parcel
Assessment Improvements Assessment Total Assessment Tax Rate per $1,000 Tax
Assessed

2008 $ 9,036,100 n/a $ 9,036,100 $2.73 $25,400.42
2009 $ 9,036,100 n/a $ 9,036,100 $2.91 $27,075.17
2010 $ 8,713,500 n/a $ 8,713,500 $3.09 $27,723.19

In accordance with G.L. c. 59, § 57C, the actual real estate tax bills for each of the subject properties for the corresponding fiscal years at issue were timely paid without incurring interest. The other relevant jurisdictional information for each of the subject properties for the corresponding fiscal years at issue is summarized in the following table.

Fiscal
Year
Actual Tax Bill Mailed Application for Abatement ("AA") Filed Denial or Deemed Denial of AA
Petition to Board Filed

2008 05/06/2008 06/04/2008 10/30/2008 01/26/2009
2009 12/30/2008 01/28/2009 04/28/2009 07/24/2009
2010 12/30/2009 01/21/2010 04/20/2010 07/15/2010
2011 12/30/2010 01/25/2011 04/25/2011 05/05/2011

Based on these dates and the timely payments of the actual real estate tax bills, the Board found and ruled that it has jurisdiction over these appeals.
Merits
Area Overview
Edgartown is located on the south side of Martha's Vineyard and is bordered by Oak Bluffs and Nantucket Sound on the north, Katama Bay on the east, the Atlantic Ocean on the south, and West Tisbury on the west. Edgartown is separated from Chappaquiddick Island by Katama Bay.
The subject properties are situated in a neighborhood comprised of large seasonal homes along Katama Bay shore and Edgartown Harbor. The subject properties are located approximately one mile south of Main Street, Edgartown, which is the commercial center of town, and two miles north of the public South Beach. A bike path runs along Katama Road providing bike access to both downtown and area beaches.
Mr. Hoehn's Contributions
For four of the subject properties, Mr. Hoehn, the appellants' expert surveyor, attempted to show certain restrictions or limitations affecting the subject properties, which Mr. Hartel then incorporated into his analyses. These matters include easements and rights-of-way, but, more particularly, the location of wetlands and flood plains, and the subject properties' coastline and views. In assessing these restrictions and limitations, Mr. Hoehn primarily used geographic information system ("GIS") maps, which are essentially satellite photographs, created for the assessors for assessment purposes.
On cross-examination, Mr. Hoehn admitted that certain maps upon which he relied to estimate the amount of wetlands on the subject properties' parcels would not be acceptable to the town's Conservation Commission and were not precise enough to "pinpoint the accuracy of . . . wetland." Mr. Hoehn or his survey company performed or supervised land surveys for some of the subject properties but he did not submit or analyze any recent actual land surveys for other subject properties. The appellants did not introduce any direct evidence quantifying the impact of wetlands or other restrictions on the subject properties' value. Rather, they relied on Mr. Hartel to incorporate into his methodology any issues raised by Mr. Hoehn. As a result, and because of the Board's findings below with respect to Mr. Hartel's valuation methodology and his purportedly comparable-sale properties, the Board was not able to develop values that reliably captured the impact, if any, of wetlands or other restrictions on the subject properties' value for the corresponding fiscal years at issue.
Mr. Hartel's Valuation Methodology
To ascertain values for each of the subject properties for their corresponding fiscal years at issue, Mr. Hartel employed what can best be described as a blended or combined, comparable-sales, land-extraction, and cost (assessment) approach. Essentially, Mr. Hartel first identified about four to six purportedly comparable-sale properties for the corresponding fiscal years at issue for each of the subject properties. He then backed-out the assessed values of the improvements from each of the sale prices, and then adjusted the extracted land values for five factors: time; location; site utility and size; view; and caliber of interest in a dock or pier. After completing these steps, he derived an indicated land value for each sale property, which he then rounded and weighted to garner an estimated land value for the subject property. As a final step, Mr. Hartel added back the assessed values of the subject property's improvements to determine his estimated fair cash value for the subject property. Mr. Hartel did not perform separate cost analyses for either the subject properties' or his sale properties' improvements, and he did not attempt to confirm the improvements' assessed values with any relevant market data. Mr. Hartel admitted that he simply relied on the assessed values as being reasonable estimates of the improvements' values as "placeholders."
A similar methodology to the one that Mr. Hartel used in these appeals is described in the Appraisal Institute's treatise, The Appraisal of Real Estate (13th ed. 2008), in the section detailing alternative techniques for valuing vacant parcels of land. Id. at 366. "Market extraction is a technique in which land value is extracted from the sale price of an improved property by deducting the contributory value of the improvements, often estimated at their depreciated cost. The remaining value represents the value of the land. Improved sales in rural areas are frequently analyzed in this way because the building and site improvements contribute little value in comparison to the underlying land value." Id. It is an alternative technique for valuing vacant parcels of land when sales of comparable vacant land are so rare that their values cannot be estimated reliably by direct comparison or with sufficient comparable data. Id. The treatise goes on to caution that "extraction methods should be used with extreme care and only when lack of market data prevents application of more direct methods and procedures." Id. at 368.
In the present appeals, Mr. Hartel's methodology takes the extraction method even further than that described in the treatise; he used it, with only one exception, to value improved waterfront property, not simply vacant parcels or large tracts of rural land with negligible building or improvement value. Moreover, Mr. Hartel relied on this approach despite not convincingly demonstrating a dearth of market data or that a more traditional sales-comparison approach was incapable of valuing the subject properties for the fiscal years at issue. Mr. Hartel's own submissions, in addition to the LA-3 sales reports in evidence, reveal that between 2006 and 2010 there were over 330 sales of single-family homes in Edgartown. As stated above, Mr. Hartel also used the improvements' assessed values instead of developing his own, assuming, but not verifying, that the assessed values were reasonably close approximations of the improvements' values as "placeholders."
In Salem Traders Way Realty, LLC v. Assessors of Salem, Mass. ATB Findings of Fact and Reports 2009-54, the Board rejected indicated values developed using a land-extraction (or land-allocation) methodology to value the subject vacant lot at issue. In that appeal, the appellant's real estate valuation expert used, among other comparable-sale properties, two sales of improved properties and "simply determined the percentage of the most recent assessment, which was attributable to the land." He then applied "that percentage to the sales price to calculate an extracted land value." Id. at 2009-59-60. The Board criticized and rejected the values derived from this approach because "[the real estate valuation expert] did not provide market evidence to demonstrate that the comparable properties' land and building assessment allocation was indicative of the property's fair market value." Id. at 2009-64.
In the instant appeals, Mr. Hartel similarly calculated his extracted land values by subtracting the assessed values of his sale properties' improvements from their sale prices without verifying the assessment component with the market or with a separate appropriately prepared cost analysis. He further compounded the problem, with respect to all of the subject properties save one, by adding the subject property's improvement assessment to his indicated land value to ascertain his estimate of the subject property's fair cash value. He therefore failed to verify or use appropriately developed data in two separate steps within his methodology.
It is noteworthy that the appellants can point to no previous appeal where the Board has adopted a similar blended methodology that relies primarily on a land-extraction technique to value improved, or for that matter even vacant, parcels.
Moreover, as will be detailed below in the Board's discussion of each of the subject properties, the Board found that the vast majority of the purportedly comparable-sale properties which Mr. Hartel used in his valuation methodology lacked basic comparability to the subject property. The Board further found that it disagreed with some of the adjustments that Mr. Hartel applied to the sale properties. The Board, therefore, rejected his valuation analysis and found that it did not provide probative evidence of fair cash value in these appeals.
Further, the Board found that the comparable-sales evidence that Mr. Hartel offered was not sufficient for the Board to derive fair cash value determinations using comparable-sales analyses. The improvements on many of his purportedly comparable-sale properties were vastly inferior to the subject properties' improvements, and he offered no adjustments to account for any improvement differences. While his methodology essentially ignored the improvements on his purportedly comparable-sale properties, evaluation of the differences between the subject properties' improvements and those on his purportedly comparable-sale properties is critical to a sound comparable-sales analysis.
In addition, the Board found that because Mr. Hartel did not provide sufficient information, appropriately analyze, or suggest suitable adjustments to account for the differences between his sale properties' improvements (except for docks) and the subject property's improvements, the Board did not have adequate data from him, or even the record as a whole, to perform a comparable-sales or similar analysis on its own.
With respect to his approach for determining the adjustments to apply to his purportedly comparable-sale properties to account for their differences in dock or pier rights compared to the subject properties' rights, the Board found that it was unreliable. Mr. Hartel analyzed what he termed "paired sales," by comparing the extracted land price of a sale with a pier to the extracted land price of a sale without a pier and then attributed the entire difference in sale prices, reformulated as a percentage, to the pier. Similar to its criticism of his blended land-extraction methodology for valuing the subject properties, the Board found that this approach contained many of the same failings in that it used assessed as opposed to market values for improvements and did not adjust for important factors, including time, location, site utility, or view. Accordingly, the Board found that the approach underlying his adjustments to account for differing dock rights was significantly flawed.
Furthermore, the Board found that Mr. Hartel's credibility as a real estate valuation expert witness was compromised not only by his complete reliance on his blended land-extraction valuation methodology for valuing the subject improved, save one, waterfront properties, but also by, among other things: his use of listings in his analyses of sales; his vacillating testimony at the prodding of appellants' counsel; his need, during trial, to change and update his valuation grids; his failure to sufficiently support his conclusion that a more traditional sales-comparison approach was unsuitable here; his failure to confirm with market data his use of assessments as market values for improvements; his use of incorrect improvement assessments; his use of inconsistent time adjustments; his contradictory use of the "cost" approach, premised on assessments, to ascertain the value of improvements when his appraisal reports state that the cost approach is not a "reliable indicator of value"; and his faulty paired-sales analysis for determining the value of rights in piers or docks.
For all of the preceding reasons, the Board found that Mr. Hartel's methodology and the values derived from it were flawed and unreliable.
Mr. Hartel's Market Overview
In his market overview, Mr. Hartel analyzed single-family sales statistics for Edgartown. The following table summarizes the eleven-year history of median sale prices and number of sales for Edgartown upon which Mr. Hartel relied for his time adjustments.
Year Median Sale Price Number of Sales
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004 $675,000
$704,000
$618,750
$700,000
$750,000
$717,500
$590,000 83
38
61
82
69
93
139
2003
2002
2001
2000 $535,000
$500,000
$465,000
$327,000 107
113
103
112

Based on this data, Mr. Hartel surmised that during the period of 2004 through 2006, Edgartown experienced significant double-digit appreciation. As of January 1, 2007, the valuation and assessment date for fiscal year 2008, Mr. Hartel believed that the market continued to appreciate despite a decreased sales volume portending some price leveling. He observed, however, that high-priced real estate, like the subject properties, was not impacted. As of January 1, 2008, the valuation and assessment date for fiscal year 2009, he related that the subprime mortgage crisis began to unfold resulting in the tightening of credit and a decline in the market. As of January 1, 2009, the valuation and assessment date for fiscal year 2010, he explained that the subprime mortgage crisis expanded and further depressed the market. He posited that the government's intervention, however, stabilized the credit markets and enhanced the availability of financing. While the market continued to decline, he observed that it also exhibited signs of stabilization. As of January 1, 2010, the valuation and assessment date for fiscal year 2011, he observed an increase in sales volume which he believed demonstrated the beginning of a revival in the market, albeit at somewhat lower prices. Mr. Hartel based his time adjustments on this analysis.
Mr. Hartel's Valuation of Each of the Subject Properties
48 Witchwood Lane - Fiscal Years 2008, 2009, 2010, & 2011
This 3.00-acre improved waterfront parcel, which is identified for assessing purposes as map 36, parcel 303.1, overlooks Edgartown Harbor and is located in the exclusive and private Witchwood Lane subdivision situated off Katama Road. The relevant assessment information for each of the fiscal years at issue is repeated in the table below.
Fiscal
Year Parcel
Assessment Improvements Assessment Total Assessment
2008 $ 9,474,900 $ 6,018,500 $15,493,400
2009 $ 9,474,900 $ 6,205,700 $15,680,600
2010 $ 9,163,200 $ 6,205,700 $15,368,900
2011 $ 9,163,200 $ 6,205,700 $15,368,900

Heavy vegetation and woods provide the properties within the subdivision with an effective privacy buffer from Katama Road. Vegetation, woods, and long driveways located within the subdivision provide privacy among the subdivision's parcels. The subject parcel is improved with a 13,071-square-foot spectacular home which was built in 2001-2002 and a 1,071-square-foot arched carriage house which contains both garage and living space. There is also a pier located on this parcel, the use of which is shared among 12 other property owners within the subdivision, and a gunite pool for the exclusive use of this subject property's owners. In addition, the owners of this subject property have the deeded right to use the pier on the abutting property to the south and, along with only three other property owners, to dock a boat larger than 18 feet. They also own non-exclusive rights to use tennis courts on a nearby parcel.
Where the subject parcel meets the water, there is a rip-rap supporting the coastal bank, but no beach. The evidence indicates that a special permit would likely be issued by the local authorities for the construction of a stairway to the water's edge if the appellant chose to apply for one. The subject property's eastern boundary is the mean high water mark in Edgartown Harbor. There are also several easements affecting the subject property, including a 25-foot wide easement running along the northern and western boundaries of the subject property, leading to the pier, a 50-foot walkway by the pier, and a 10-foot wide secondary easement which only springs into use if the 25-foot easement is not being used.
The subject property's residence is a U-shaped 13,071-square-foot single family home for which Mr. Hartel provided little description. Relying primarily on the subject property's property record card and the Board's view, the subject property's residence is a two-story, "New England" custom home with wood shingle exterior siding and seven bedrooms, 7.5 bathrooms, central air conditioning, and forced hot air gas heating. The flooring is hardwood, and some of the interior walls are custom wood paneling. In addition, the residence has several fireplaces, 1,795 square feet of finished basement space, an attached 925-square-foot garage, a 1,851-square-foot open porch, and a 549-square-foot wood deck.
The approach along the driveway to the subject property's residence is distinguished by a grand arched entrance through the two-story carriage house. Above the main level garage space, the carriage house has 1,071 square feet of guest living space with two bedrooms and two bathrooms. Similar to the main residence, the carriage house's exterior siding is wood shingle, and it also has central air conditioning, forced hot air gas heating, hardwood flooring, and some custom wood paneling on its interior walls.
To estimate the value of the subject property for fiscal year 2008, Mr. Hartel used as his purportedly comparable-sale properties in his methodology: 27 Tower Hill Road (comparable sale 1); 91 North Water Street (comparable sale 2); 38 Cow Bay Road (comparable sale 3); and 12 Guernsey Lane (comparable sale 4).
Comparable sale 1, 27 Tower Hill Road, is a 1.5-acre waterfront parcel that, at the time of sale, was improved with a 5,500-square-foot residence which was razed after the sale and replaced with a modern structure. The assessors adjusted this sale property's assessment by $500,000 to account for its location abutting a cemetery. Comparable sale 1 was purchased in April, 2005 for $7,413,500 after being marketed for a full year. Excluding his time adjustment of 17%, Mr. Hartel's gross adjustments for the parcel alone totaled 30%. Mr. Hartel did not account for this sale property's proximity to a cemetery. Had he accounted for this sale property's location next to the cemetery, his gross adjustments would have likely totaled closer to 40%.
Comparable sale 2, 91 North Water Street, is a 0.33-acre waterfront parcel that, at the time of sale, was improved with an approximately 1,900-square-foot residence with eight rooms, including four bedrooms and 2.5 bathrooms. It was substantially renovated after the sale. Comparable sale 2 is located in the downtown section of Edgartown with a hotel situated next door and the Chappaquiddick ferry (the "Chappy ferry") nearby. This sale property was purchased in August, 2006 for $9,000,000. It had not been marketed; the negotiations and sale were conducted privately. Excluding his time adjustment of 1.5%, Mr. Hartel's gross adjustments for the parcel alone totaled 35%.
Comparable sale 3, 38 Cow Bay Road, is a 2.6-acre, non-waterfront parcel that, at the time of sale, was improved with two buildings - one being the 4,364-square-foot residence and the other being a 943-square-foot guest house with one bedroom and one bathroom. The house underwent substantial renovation after the sale. Pedestrian access to the beach is provided by a right to pass on foot across adjacent common land. This sale property is also burdened by an 18-foot right of way, and its improvements at the time of sale totaled almost 30% of the overall assessment ($2,969,000 to $10,280,000). This sale property does not have a pier and is located in an area of Edgartown that appeals more to a non-boating, country club and golfing enthusiast. Excluding his time adjustment of 3%, Mr. Hartel's gross adjustments for the parcel alone totaled 20%.
Comparable sale 4, 12 Guernsey Lane, is a 2.1-acre, waterfront parcel that, at the time of sale, was improved with two small dated cottages. After its sale in January, 2009 for $7,500,000, a new home was built on the property. This sale property has a small beach area and a small pier. As of January 1, 2007, the valuation and assessment date for fiscal year 2008, this sale property was merely a listing, and the Presiding Commissioner ruled that it would not be considered in the valuation appeal for this fiscal year.
Mr. Hartel's updated adjustment grid for fiscal year 2008 is substantially reproduced in the two tables below.

Fiscal Year 2008
Subject Comparable Sale 1 Comparable Sale 2
Location 48 Witchwood Ln 27 Tower Hill Rd 91 N. Water St
Map & Parcel 36-303.10 29-127 20D-282
Parcel Size (acres) 3.00 1.50 0.33
Sale Price n/a $ 7,413,500 $ 9,000,000
Improvements AV $ 6,018,500 $ 533,200 $ 454,200
Extracted Land Value n/a $ 6,880,300 $ 8,545,800
Date of Sale 01/01/2007 04/14/2005 08/31/2006
Time Adjustment $ 1,169,651 (17%) $ 128,187 (1.5%)
Adjusted Subtotal $ 8,049,951 $ 8,673,987
Location Good Inferior 5% Superior -10%
Site Utility Size Average Superior - 5% Superior - 5%
View Average Superior -10% Superior -10%
Dock Shared Right Superior -10% Superior -10%
Net Adjustment $(1,609,990)-20% $(3,035,895)-35%
Indicated Land Value $ 6,439,961 $ 5,638,092
Rounded Land Value $ 6,400,000 $ 5,600,000

Fiscal Year 2008 (cont.)

Subject Comparable Sale 3 Comparable Sale 4
Location 48 Witchwood Ln 38 Cow Bay Rd 12 Guernsey Ln
Map & Parcel 36-303.10 12-26 36-336
Parcel Size (acres) 3.00 2.60 2.10
Sale Price n/a $10,280,000 $ 8,500,000
Improvements AV $ 6,018,500 $ 2,969,000 $ 200,300
Extracted Land Value n/a $ 7,311,000 $ 8,299,700
Date of Sale 01/01/2007 04/07/2006 Listing
Time Adjustment $ 219,330 (3%) (0%)
Adjusted Subtotal $ 7,530,330 $ 8,299,700
Location Good Similar 0% Inferior 5%
Site Utility Size Average Superior - 5% Superior - 5%
View Average Superior - 5% Superior - 5%
Dock Shared Right Inferior 10% Superior -10%
Net Adjustment 0% $(1,244,955)-15%
Indicated Land Value $ 7,530,330 $ 7,054,745
Rounded Land Value $ 7,500,000 $ 7,100,000

Mr. Hartel applied the most weight to comparable sales 1 and 3, in determining a rounded indicated land value for the subject property of $6,900,000. He then added back the $6,018,500 assessed value of the subject property's improvements and estimated the fair cash value of the subject property at $12,918,500 for fiscal year 2008.
In sum, of the four purportedly comparable-sale properties on which Mr. Hartel relied to estimate the fair cash value of the subject property for fiscal year 2008: one of them is a mere listing; another is not a waterfront property and contains an improvement with an assessed value approaching 30% of the sale price, which undermines the usual rationale and Mr. Hartel's reasoning for using it in a land-extraction methodology; a third is located in the congested downtown area, has a considerably smaller parcel, was not marketed before its sale, and requires extensive adjustment; and the fourth has a time adjustment of 17% and additional gross adjustments for the parcel alone totaling 30%. The Board determined that this latter sale property should have been adjusted further to account for its location next to a cemetery.
To estimate the value of the subject property for fiscal year 2009, Mr. Hartel continued to use as his purportedly comparable-sale properties in his methodology: 91 North Water Street (comparable sale 2); 38 Cow Bay Road (comparable sale 3); and 12 Guernsey Lane (comparable sale 4); but replaced 27 Tower Hill Road with 93 N. Water Street (comparable sale 1).
Comparable sale 1 for this fiscal year, 93 N. Water Street, is located next to comparable sale 2 in downtown Edgartown near a hotel and the Chappy ferry. Comparable sale 1 has a 0.25-acre waterfront parcel that, at the time of sale, was improved with an approximately 1,900-square-foot residence with eight rooms, including four bedrooms as well as 2.5 bathrooms. It was substantially renovated after the sale. This sale property was purchased in February, 2007 for $9,300,000. Excluding his time adjustment of 5.5%, Mr. Hartel's gross adjustments for the parcel alone totaled 35%.
Mr. Hartel's updated adjustment grid for fiscal year 2009 is substantially reproduced in the two tables below.
Fiscal Year 2009
Subject Comparable Sale 1 Comparable Sale 2
Location 48 Witchwood Ln 93 N. Water St 91 N. Water St
Map & Parcel 36-303.10 20D-281 20D-282
Parcel Size (acres) 3.00 0.25 0.33
Sale Price n/a $ 9,300,000 $ 9,000,000
Improvements AV $ 6,205,700 $ 416,000 $ 454,200
Extracted Land Value n/a $ 8,884,000 $ 8,545,800
Date of Sale 01/01/2008 02/22/2007 08/31/2006
Time Adjustment $ -488,620 (-5.5%) $ -444,382 (-5.2%)
Adjusted Subtotal $ 8,395,380 $ 8,101,418
Location Good Superior -10% Superior -10%
Site Utility Size Average Superior - 5% Superior - 5%
View Average Superior -10% Superior -10%
Dock Shared Right Superior -10% Superior -10%
Net Adjustment $(2,938,383)-35% $(2,835,496)-35%
Indicated Land Value $ 5,456,997 $ 5,265,922
Rounded Land Value $ 5,500,000 $ 5,300,000

Fiscal Year 2009 (cont.)

Subject Comparable Sale 3 Comparable Sale 4
Location 48 Witchwood Ln 38 Cow Bay Rd 12 Guernsey Ln
Map & Parcel 36-303.10 12-26 36-336
Parcel Size (acres) 3.00 2.60 2.10
Sale Price n/a $10,280,000 $ 8,500,000
Improvements AV $ 6,205,700 $ 2,969,000 $ 200,300
Extracted Land Value n/a $ 7,311,000 $ 8,299,700
Date of Sale 01/01/2008 04/07/2006 Listing
Time Adjustment $ -263,196 (-3.6%) (0%)
Adjusted Subtotal $ 7,047,804 $ 8,299,700
Location Good Similar 0% Inferior 5%
Site Utility Size Average Superior - 5% Superior - 5%
View Average Superior - 5% Superior - 5%
Dock Shared Right Inferior 10% Superior -10%
Net Adjustment 0% $(1,244,955)-15%
Indicated Land Value $ 7,047,804 $ 7,054,745
Rounded Land Value $ 7,000,000 $ 7,100,000

Mr. Hartel applied the most weight to comparable sale 3, in determining a rounded indicated land value for the subject property of $6,500,000. He then added back the $6,205,700 assessed value of the subject property's improvements and estimated the fair cash value of the subject property at $12,705,700 for fiscal year 2009.
In sum, of the four purportedly comparable-sale properties on which Mr. Hartel relied to estimate the value of the subject property for fiscal year 2009: one of them is a mere listing; two others, among other differences, are located in the congested downtown area, have considerably smaller parcels, and require extensive adjustment (35% each for the parcel alone, not including additional time adjustments exceeding 5%), and the fourth is a non-waterfront property which contains an improvement with an assessed value approaching 30% of the sale price, which undermines the usual rationale and Mr. Hartel's reasoning for using it in a land-extraction methodology.
To estimate the value of the subject property for fiscal year 2010, Mr. Hartel continued to use as his purportedly comparable-sale properties in his methodology: 93 North Water Street (comparable sale 2) and 12 Guernsey Lane (comparable sale 4); but replaced 91 N. Water Street with 65 N. Water Street (comparable sale 1) and 38 Cow Bay Lane with 41 S. Water Street (comparable sale 3).
Comparable sale 1 for this fiscal year, 65 N. Water Street, is situated on the water in the downtown area of Edgartown, very near comparable sale 2, 91 N. Water Street. Comparable sale 1 is improved with a classic antique captain's house that is located near the street with only 0.31-acres of land. The house was built in 1870 and contains 2,434 square feet of living space with five bedrooms and 2.5 bathrooms. The house was renovated to some extent after the sale. This sale property was purchased in January, 2009 for $11,750,000. Even without a time adjustment, Mr. Hartel's gross adjustments for the parcel alone totaled 35%.
Comparable sale 3 for this fiscal year, 41 S. Water Street, is situated much closer to the three N. Water Street sale properties than the subject property. It also has more property characteristics in common with the N. Water Street sale properties than it has with the subject property, including a waterfront parcel of only 0.26 acres. The residence on this sale property was built about 1900 and contains 5,046 square feet, including five bedrooms and three bathrooms. This sale property was purchased in December, 2008 for $8,350,000. Even without any time adjustment, Mr. Hartel's gross adjustments for the parcel alone totaled 25%.
Mr. Hartel's adjustment grid for fiscal year 2010 is substantially reproduced in the two tables below.
Fiscal Year 2010
Subject Comparable Sale 1 Comparable Sale 2
Location 48 Witchwood Ln 65 N. Water St 93 N. Water St
Map & Parcel 36-303.10 20D-293 20D-281
Parcel Size (acres) 3.00 0.33 0.25
Sale Price n/a $11,750,000 $ 9,300,000
Improvements AV $ 6,205,700 $ 992,600 $ 416,000
Extracted Land Value n/a $10,757,400 $ 8,884,000
Date of Sale 01/01/2009 01/23/2009 02/22/2007
Time Adjustment (0%) $-1,510,280 (-17%)
Adjusted Subtotal $10,757,400 $ 7,373,720
Location Good Superior -10% Superior -10%
Site Utility Size Average Superior - 5% Superior - 5%
View Average Superior -10% Superior -10%
Dock Shared Right Superior -10% Superior -10%
Net Adjustment $(3,765,090)-35% $(2,580,802)-35%
Indicated Land Value $ 6,992,310 $ 4,792,918
Rounded Land Value $ 7,000,000 $ 4,800,000

Fiscal Year 2010 (cont.)

Subject Comparable Sale 3 Comparable Sale 4
Location 48 Witchwood Ln 41 S. Water St 12 Guernsey Ln
Map & Parcel 36-303.10 20D-328 36-336
Parcel Size (acres) 3.00 0.26 2.10
Sale Price n/a $ 8,350,000 $ 7,500,000
Improvements AV $ 6,205,700 $ 731,700 $ 293,000
Extracted Land Value n/a $ 7,618,300 $ 7,207,000
Date of Sale 01/01/2009 12/05/2008 01/28/2009
Time Adjustment (0%) (0%)
Adjusted Subtotal $ 7,618,300 $ 7,207,000
Location Good Similar 0% Inferior 5%
Site Utility Size Average Superior - 5% Superior - 5%
View Average Superior -10% Superior - 5%
Dock Shared Right Superior -10% Superior -10%
Net Adjustment $(1,904,575)-25% $(1,081,050)-15%
Indicated Land Value $ 5,713,725 $ 6,125,950
Rounded Land Value $ 5,700,000 $ 6,100,000

Mr. Hartel applied the most weight to comparable sales 3 and 4, in determining a rounded indicated land value for the subject property of $5,900,000. He then added back the $6,205,700 assessed value of the subject property's improvements and estimated the fair cash value of the subject property at $12,105,700 for fiscal year 2010.
In sum, of the four purportedly comparable-sale properties on which Mr. Hartel relied to estimate the value of the subject property for fiscal year 2010: two of them, among other differences, are located in the congested downtown area, have considerably smaller parcels, and require extensive adjustment (35% each not including an additional time adjustment of 17% for one of them); another has a considerably smaller parcel and has more property characteristics in common with the downtown sale properties than the subject property; and the fourth was not well described by Mr. Hartel in either his summary report or in his testimony and required a gross adjustment of 25% for the parcel alone.
To estimate the value of the subject property for fiscal year 2011, Mr. Hartel continued to use as his purportedly comparable-sale properties in his methodology: 65 N. Water Street (comparable sale 1) and 12 Guernsey Lane (comparable sale 2), but replaced his other comparables with 9 Guernsey Lane & 40 Down Harbor Road (comparable sale 3); 10, 18 & 24 Ocean View Avenue (comparable sale 4); and 51 Witchwood Lane (comparable sale 5).
Comparable sale 3 for this fiscal year, 9 Guernsey Lane and 40 Down Harbor Road, are two separate adjacent parcels that Mr. Hartel combined into and treated as one sale because they were sold simultaneously by the same seller to separate buyers who were husband and wife. At the time of sale, 9 Guernsey Lane was a 2.0-acre, waterview, but non-waterfront parcel improved with a 2,406-square-foot home that was built in 1964 and a small 586-square-foot guest house that was built in 1965. A garage and two large storage sheds were also located on this parcel. The 40 Down Harbor Road property was a 1.3-acre, non-waterfront, non-conforming parcel of vacant land with water views, which was located directly in front of 9 Guernsey Lane. The 40 Down Harbor Road parcel borders the Down Harbor Association beach and also has access to the association's dock. These sale properties were purchased in August, 2009 for $2,120,000 and $3,180,000, respectively. Excluding his time adjustment of 5%, Mr. Hartel's gross adjustments to these two combined sale properties totaled 20% for the parcels alone.
Comparable sale 4 for this fiscal year, 10, 18, and 24 Ocean View Avenue, is composed of three parcels which total 4.78 acres. Both 10 and 18 Ocean View Avenue are 0.69-acres, while 24 Ocean View Avenue is a 3.40-acre waterfront parcel. These three parcels comprise what Mr. Hartel terms "a true estate," which includes impressive views, water frontage, docks, and privacy, as well as a 4,369-square-foot, ten-room residence, with seven bedrooms, seven bathrooms, and two half bathrooms. The estate also has a 1,094-square-foot carriage/guest house with two bedrooms and two bathrooms, along with an outdoor pool and pool house and several other outbuildings. According to Mr. Hartel, the improvements "reflect[] a timeless elegance." This sale property was purchased in August, 2010 for $17,375,000. Excluding his time adjustment of 2.72%, Mr. Hartel's gross adjustments for the combined parcel alone totaled 50%.
Comparable sale 5 for this fiscal year, 51 Witchwood Lane, is a 2.31-acre waterfront parcel which was improved, at the time of the sale, with a 726-square-foot, three room, two bedroom, plus one bathroom, cabin. This sale property was purchased in January, 2011 for $8,000,000. Excluding his time adjustment of 5.5%, Mr. Hartel's gross adjustments for the parcel alone totaled 25%.
Mr. Hartel's adjustment grid for fiscal year 2011 is substantially reproduced in the two tables below.
Fiscal Year 2011
Subject Comparable Sale 1 Comparable Sale 2
Location 48 Witchwood Ln 65 N. Water St 12 Guernsey Ln
Map & Parcel 36-303.10 20D-293 36-336
Parcel Size (acres) 3.00 0.33 2.10
Sale Price n/a $11,750,000 $ 7,500,000
Improvements AV $ 6,205,700 $ 992,600 $ 154,400
Extracted Land Value n/a $10,757,400 $ 7,345,600
Date of Sale 01/01/2010 01/23/2009 01/28/2009
Time Adjustment $ 1,358,660 (12.63%) $ 927,749 (12.63%)
Adjusted Subtotal $12,116,060 $ 8,273,349
Location Good Superior -10% Inferior 5%
Site Utility Size Average Superior -05% Superior - 5%
View Average Superior -10% Superior - 5%
Dock 1/6 Shared Right Superior -10% Superior -10%
Net Adjustment $(4,240,621)-35% $(1,241,002)-15%
Indicated Land Value $ 7,875,439 $ 7,032,347
Rounded Land Value $ 7,900,000 $ 7,000,000

Fiscal Year 2011 (cont.)

Comparable Sale 3 Comparable Sale 4 Comparable Sale 5
Location 9 Guernsey Ln &
40 Down Harbor Rd 10, 18 & 24 Ocean View Ave 51 Witchwood Ln
Map & Parcel 29-334 & 338 29-154, 146 & 149 36-303.12
Parcel Size (acres) 3.30 4.78 2.31
Sale Price $ 5,300,000 $17,375,000 $ 8,000,000
Improvements AV $ 543,000 $ 3,885,100 $ 30,700
Extracted Land Value $ 4,757,000 $13,489,900 $ 7,969,300
Date of Sale 08/21/2009 08/16/2010 01/25/2011
Time Adjustment $ 237,850 (5%) $ -366,925 (-2.72%) $ 443,890 (5.57%)
Adjusted Subtotal $ 4,994,850 $13,122,975 $ 8,413,190
Location Inferior 5% Superior -10% Similar 0%
Site Utility Size Superior - 5% Superior -15% Superior -10%
View Superior -10% Superior -15% Superior - 5%
Dock Similar 0% Superior -10% Superior -10%
Net Adjustment $( 499,485)-10% $(6,561,487)-50% $(2,103,298)-25%
Indicated Land Value $ 4,495,365 $ 6,561,487 $ 6,309,893
Rounded Land Value $ 4,500,000 $ 6,600,000 $ 6,300,000

Mr. Hartel applied the most weight to comparable sale 2 and the least to comparable sale 1, in determining a rounded indicated land value for the subject property of $6,400,000. He then added back the $6,205,700 assessed value of the subject property's improvements and estimated the fair cash value of the subject property at $12,605,700 for fiscal year 2011.
In sum, of the five purportedly comparable-sale properties on which Mr. Hartel relied to estimate the value of the subject property for fiscal year 2011: one, among other differences, is located in the congested downtown area, has a considerably smaller parcel, and requires extensive adjustment (35% for the parcel alone, not including an additional time adjustment of 12.63%); three others have improvements that are not remotely similar or comparable to the subject property's, and one of those is not waterfront property; and the fifth required gross adjustments totaling 50% for the parcel alone, not including an additional time adjustment of over 2%.
The Board's Findings for the 48 Witchwood Lane Property
With respect to 27 Tower Hill Road, the Board found that its location next to a cemetery and its outdated improvements, which were razed after the sale, rendered this sale property not fundamentally comparable to the subject property whose improvements were assessed at over $6 million and consisted of a 13,071-square-foot spectacular home which was built in 2001-2002 and a 1,071-square-foot arched carriage house which contains both garage and living space. Mr. Hartel's failure to adjust for the improvements' differences negated the Board's ability to consider this sale property in a conventional comparable-sales approach. In addition, the Board found that it would have increased Mr. Hartel's adjustments relating to the location and size and utility of this sale property's parcel bringing his gross adjustment total for the parcel alone closer to 40% than his 30%. In other recent appeals, the Board has found that gross adjustments totaling just 40% indicate that purportedly comparable-sale properties are not fundamentally comparable to the property to which it is being compared. See, e.g., Salem Traders Way Realty, LLC, Mass. ATB Findings of Fact and Reports at 2009-63. The Board found that to be true here as well.
Moreover, even though this sale property's outdated improvements were razed after the sale, Mr. Hartel still subtracted their assessed values from the sale price in prescribing a land value to this sale property. Presumably, this sale property was sold with the razing and demolition costs in mind. Accordingly, and assuming all other things being equal, it was not appropriate for Mr. Hartel to adjust the sale price thought to be attributable to the land by subtracting the improvements' assessed values to ascertain an indicated value for the subject property's parcel.
With respect to 91 N. Water Street, the Board found that its noisier, in-town location, next to a hotel and near the Chappy ferry, as well as its significantly smaller parcel size of 0.33 acres compared to the subject property's 3.00 acres and improvement age, style, and size of 1,914 square feet compared to the subject property's 13,000 plus square feet, and its near complete lack of privacy rendered this sale property not fundamentally comparable to the subject property. Mr. Hartel's failure to adjust for the improvements' differences negated the Board's ability to consider this sale property in a conventional comparable-sales approach. Moreover, this sale property sold privately and was not marketed. Without considering his time adjustments, Mr. Hartel's adjustments for this property's parcel alone totaled 35%, which, under the circumstances, supports the Board's finding of non-comparability.
With respect to 38 Cow Bay Road, the Board found that it is not waterfront property -- one of the most important considerations for valuing property in Edgartown; it does not have access to a pier; and, unlike the subject property, it is located in an area of Edgartown that appeals to a non-boating, country club and golfing type of buyer. This sale property is also burdened by an 18-foot right of way, and its improvements at the time of sale totaled almost 30% of the overall assessment, which is inconsistent with the usual rationale and Mr. Hartel's reasoning for utilizing a valuation methodology which relies on a land-extraction analysis -- an approach best suited for valuing, and using in the valuation analysis, vacant land or property with minimal or negligible value in its improvements, like large rural tracts. Accordingly, the Board found that this sale property was not fundamentally comparable to the subject property and should not have been included in Mr. Hartel's methodology.
With respect to 12 Guernsey Lane, it was only a listing at all times relevant to the fiscal year 2008 and 2009 appeals -- the sale having occurred in November, 2008, and the Presiding Commissioner therefore limited its consideration to the fiscal year 2010 and 2011 appeals. Mr. Hartel applied gross adjustments totaling 25% to this sale property's parcel alone. While the Board found that the parcel associated with 12 Guernsey Lane was reasonably comparable to the subject property's parcel, this sale property lacked overall basic comparability because the 12 Guernsey Lane property was improved with only two small cottages, while the subject property was improved with a 13,000-plus-square-foot spectacular residence plus an impressive carriage house, which were assessed for over $6 million. Mr. Hartel's failure to adjust for the improvements' differences negated the Board's ability to consider this sale property in a conventional comparable-sales approach.
Furthermore, and similar to what occurred with the sale property located at 27 Tower Hill Road, 12 Guernsey Lane's outdated improvements were razed after the sale and a new home was built. Notwithstanding this foreseeable development, Mr. Hartel still subtracted the improvements' assessed values from the sale price in developing an indicated value for the subject property's parcel. Presumably, this sale property was sold with the razing and demolition costs in mind. Accordingly, and assuming all other things being equal, it was not appropriate for Mr. Hartel to adjust the sale price by subtracting the assessed values of the improvements to ascertain an indicated value for the subject property's parcel.
With respect to 93 N. Water Street, it is located next to another sale property for fiscal years 2008 and 2009, 91 N. Water Street. Similar to that sale property, 93 N. Water Street is situated in the downtown area of Edgartown in a much busier, heavily trafficked, and less private section of town than the subject property. A hotel and the Chappy ferry are located nearby, which exposes this sale property to significant additional traffic and congestion. Moreover, this sale property's parcel size is only 0.25 acres compared to the subject property's 3.00 acres. At the time of sale, this sale property was improved with an approximately 1,900-square-foot residence with eight rooms, including four bedrooms, as well as 2.5 bathrooms, compared to the subject property's much larger, higher valued, and more spectacular improvements. Mr. Hartel's failure to adjust for the improvements' differences negated the Board's ability to consider this sale property in a conventional comparable-sales approach. The Board found that this sale property lacked basic comparability to the subject property. Excluding his time adjustment, Mr. Hartel's gross adjustments for this sale property's parcel alone totaled 35%, which, under the circumstances, support the Board's finding of non-comparability.
With respect to 65 N. Water Street, the Board found that, similar to the other N. Water Street sale properties, this sale property lacked basic comparability to the subject property because it is also located in the downtown area of Edgartown in a much busier and heavily trafficked area than the subject property. In addition, this sale property is improved with a significantly smaller, classic antique captain's home situated near the street. Mr. Hartel's failure to adjust for the improvements' differences negated the Board's ability to consider this sale property in a conventional comparable-sales approach. The improvement's assessed value is nearly $1 million, which represents almost 10% of the overall assessed value for this property. While not as pronounced a percentage as that for the 38 Cow Bay Road sale property's improvement, it is still significant enough to undercut the usual rationale and Mr. Hartel's reasoning for using it in a valuation methodology that relies on a land-extraction analysis. Excluding his time adjustment, Mr. Hartel's gross adjustments for this sale property's parcel alone total 35%, which supports the Board's finding of non-comparability.
With respect to 41 S. Water Street, the Board found that it is situated much closer to the three N. Water Street sale properties than the subject property. It also shares more property characteristics with them than with the subject property, including a parcel size of only 0.26 acres compared to the subject property's 3.00 acres and an improvement barely one-third the size of the subject property's main residence. Mr. Hartel's failure to adjust for the improvements' differences negated the Board's ability to consider this sale property in a conventional comparable-sales approach. The Board found that this sale property lacked basic comparability to the subject property.
With respect to 9 Guernsey Lane and 40 Down Harbor Road, they are both non-waterfront properties of 2.0 acres and a non-conforming 1.3 acres, respectively. The former property was improved with an older, modest, 2,406-square-foot home and a small, older, 586-square-foot guest house, while the latter property was vacant. These two properties sold simultaneously - one to the husband and the other to the wife - who later reconfigured them to allow the 40 Down Harbor Road property to become a buildable lot and meet minimum zoning requirements. The assessors invalidated these sales because of the razing and rebuilding of the improvements and the reconfiguration of the parcels. Similarly, the Board found that the sales of these two properties were problematic, and they lacked basic comparability to the subject property, even with the neighborhood association's benefits, which provided beach and dock access, primarily because of the vast difference between the improvements - the subject property's improvements were assessed for over $6 million compared to the sale property's $543,000. Mr. Hartel's failure to adjust for the improvements' differences negated the Board's ability to consider this sale property in a conventional comparable-sales approach.
With respect to 10, 18 and 24 Ocean View Avenue, excluding his time adjustment, Mr. Hartel's gross adjustments for the parcel alone totaled 50%, which by itself strongly indicates that this sale property lacks basic comparability to the subject property. Moreover, the value of the improvement on this sale property represents over 20% of its overall value, which undermines the usual rationale and Mr. Hartel's reasoning for using this sale property in a valuation methodology that relies on a land-extraction analysis. The Board found that this sale property was not comparable to the subject property.
With respect to 51 Witchwood Lane, the Board found that while its parcel may be reasonably comparable to the subject property -- Mr. Hartel applied gross adjustments to the parcel alone totaling 25%, excluding his time adjustment -- the property as a whole is not. The 51 Witchwood Lane property is composed of an essentially vacant lot while the subject property is improved with over a 13,000-square-foot residence plus an expansive carriage house along with some other outbuildings. Mr. Hartel's failure to adjust for the improvements' differences negated the Board's ability to consider this sale property in a conventional comparable-sales approach.
On these bases and considering the infirmities with Mr. Hartel's valuation methodology and his purportedly comparable-sale properties, the Board found that the values which he proposed were unreliable, and there was insufficient evidence upon which the Board could rely to develop fair cash values for the subject property for fiscal years 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011 using a comparable-sale or alternative method of valuation.

44 Green Hollow Road - Fiscal Years 2008, 2009, & 2010
The subject property, identified as map 29, parcel 134 for assessing purposes, consists of an approximately 1.14 acre registered waterfront parcel, with several improvements, including an unheated, non-winterized, 1,676-square-foot, older but well-maintained four- or five-bedroom cottage with two full bathrooms and two fireplaces, an unattached three-car garage and a shared wooden pier or dock. The garage also has an attached in-law suite composed of a bedroom, a sitting area, and a bathroom. The subject property does not have sewer or septic but instead uses two cesspools.
The subject property's assessed values for the fiscal years at issue are summarized in the following table.
Fiscal
Year Parcel
Assessment Improvements Assessment Total Assessment
2008 $10,489,700 $299,900 $10,789,600
2009 $10,489,700 $277,500 $10,767,200
2010 $ 9,867,200 $277,500 $10,144,700

The subject parcel is comprised of two lots which are side-by-side and have about 96 to 107 feet of combined water-frontage along Edgartown Harbor. Lot 1 is by far the wider and larger lot; it is on the northern side of the subject parcel. Lot 2 is approximately 16 feet wide with an area of about 7,552 to 7,819 square feet; it is on the southern side of the parcel. The subject property's pier is constructed on Lot 2; the other improvements are on Lot 1. To the north and adjacent to the subject property is an improved 1.6-acre parcel with an address of 40 Green Hollow Drive and an assessing parcel designation of 29-132. At all relevant times, this parcel was owned by Walter Leland Cronkite, Jr. or was part of his estate (the "Cronkite property").
The subject property is burdened by several easements. One of the easements is ten feet wide and runs the length of the southern boundary of Lot 1 and along the northern boundary of Lot 2 to the water. This easement, which permits pedestrian as well as vehicular traffic to access and share the subject property's pier, inures to the benefit of the property adjacent to the western boundary of the subject property (assessing parcel 29-131). Another easement is a right-of-way that provides access to the Cronkite property from Green Hollow Road. This easement is located in the far western portion of the subject parcel. A third easement is a view easement which restricts the height of vegetation or fencing along the boundary between the subject property and the Cronkite property to 3.5 feet. The purpose of this easement is to protect the views from the west for assessing parcel 29-131. Finally, there was a life-tenancy/lease agreement with Mr. Cronkite entitling him to use the subject property's pier, store a large boat at the dock, traverse from his pier to the subject property's pier and back, and to utilize up to two parking spaces in the garage. In conjunction with this agreement, Mr. Cronkite assumed a conditional obligation to maintain the subject property's pier and to pay $50 per month for each garage space used.
To estimate the value of the subject property for fiscal years 2008, 2009, and 2010, Mr. Hartel used the same purportedly comparable-sale properties that he used to value the previously discussed subject property, 48 Witchwood Lane.
Mr. Hartel's adjustment grid for fiscal year 2008 is reproduced in the tables below.

Fiscal Year 2008
Subject Comparable Sale 1 Comparable Sale 2
Location 44 Green Hollow Rd 27 Tower Hill Rd 91 N. Water St
Map & Parcel 29-134 29-127 20D-282
Parcel Size (acres) 1.14 1.50 0.33
Sale Price n/a $ 7,413,500 $ 9,000,000
Improvements AV $ 253,300 $ 533,200 $ 454,200
Extracted Land Value n/a $ 6,880,300 $ 8,545,800
Date of Sale 01/01/2007 04/14/2005 Listing
Time Adjustment $ 1,169,651 (17%) $ 128,187 (1.5%)
Adjusted Subtotal $ 8,049,951 $ 8,673,987
Location Average Inferior 5% Superior -10%
Site Utility Size Fair Superior -20% Superior -20%
View Average Superior -10% Superior -10%
Dock Fair Superior -10% Superior -10%
Net Adjustment $(2,817,483)-35% $(4,336,994)-50%
Indicated Land Value $ 5,232,468 $ 4,336,994
Rounded Land Value $ 5,200,000 $ 4,300,000

Fiscal Year 2008 (cont.)

Subject Comparable Sale 3 Comparable Sale 4
Location 44 Green Hollow Rd 38 Cow Bay Rd 12 Guernsey Ln
Map & Parcel 29-134 12-26 36-336
Parcel Size (acres) 1.14 2.60 2.10
Sale Price n/a $10,280,000 $ 8,500,000
Improvements AV $ 253,300 $ 2,969,000 $ 200,300
Extracted Land Value n/a $ 7,311,000 $ 8,299,700
Date of Sale 01/01/2007 04/07/2006 01/01/2007
Time Adjustment $ 219,330 (3%) (0%)
Adjusted Subtotal $ 7,530,330 $ 8,299,700
Location Average Similar 0% Inferior 5%
Site Utility Size Fair Superior -10% Superior -20%
View Average Similar 0% Similar 0%
Dock Fair Inferior 10% Superior -10%
Net Adjustment 0% $(2,074,925)-25%
Indicated Land Value $ 7,530,330 $ 6,224,775
Rounded Land Value $ 7,500,000 $ 6,200,000

Fiscal Year 2009 (cont.)

Subject Comparable Sale 3 Comparable Sale 4
Location 44 Green Hollow Rd 38 Cow Bay Rd 12 Guernsey Ln
Map & Parcel 29-134 12-26 36-336
Parcel Size (acres) 1.14 2.60 2.10
Sale Price n/a $10,280,000 $ 8,500,000
Improvements AV $ 230,900 $ 2,969,000 $ 200,300
Extracted Land Value n/a $ 7,311,000 $ 8,299,700
Date of Sale 01/01/2008 04/07/2006 Listing
Time Adjustment $ -263,196 (-3.6%) (0%)
Adjusted Subtotal $ 7,047,804 $ 8,299,700
Location Average Similar 0% Inferior 5%
Site Utility Size Fair Superior -10% Superior -20%
View Average Similar 0% Similar 0%
Dock Fair Inferior 10% Superior -10%
Net Adjustment 0% $(2,074,925)-25%
Indicated Land Value $ 7,047,804 $ 6,224,775
Rounded Land Value $ 7,000,000 $ 6,200,000

Fiscal Year 2010 (cont.)

Subject Comparable Sale 3 Comparable Sale 4
Location 44 Green Hollow Rd 41 S. Water St 12 Guernsey Ln
Map & Parcel 29-134 20D-328 36-336
Parcel Size (acres) 1.14 0.26 2.10
Sale Price n/a $ 8,350,000 $ 7,500,000
Improvements AV $230,900 $ 731,700 $ 293,000
Extracted Land Value n/a $ 7,618,300 $ 7,207,000
Date of Sale 01/01/2009 12/05/2008 01/28/2009
Time Adjustment (0%) (0%)
Adjusted Subtotal $ 7,618,300 $ 7,207,000
Location Average Similar 0% Inferior 5%
Site Utility Size Fair Superior -10% Superior -20%
View Average Superior -10% Similar 0%
Dock Fair Superior -10% Superior -10%
Net Adjustment $(2,285,490)-30% $(1,801,750
)-25%
Indicated Land Value $ 5,332,810 $ 5,405,250
Rounded Land Value $ 5,300,000 $ 5,400,000

Mr. Hartel apparently applied equal weight to his purportedly comparable-sale properties' rounded indicated land values in recommending an estimated land value for the subject property of $5,000,000. He then added back the $230,900 assessed value of the subject property's improvements and estimated the fair cash value of the subject property at $5,230,900 for fiscal year 2010.
In sum, of the four purportedly comparable-sale properties on which Mr. Hartel relied to estimate the value of the subject property for fiscal year 2010: two of them are located in the congested downtown area, have considerably smaller parcels, and require extensive adjustment (50% each not including an additional time adjustment of 17% for one of them); another has a considerably smaller parcel and has more property characteristics in common with the downtown sale properties than the subject property; and the fourth was not well described by Mr. Hartel in either his summary report or in his testimony and required a gross adjustment of 35% for the parcel alone, without an adjustment for time.
The Board's Findings for the 44 Green Hollow Road Property
With respect to 27 Tower Hill Road, the Board found that Mr. Hartel failed to describe this sale property's waste disposal system and whether it was affected by any easements. In addition, without considering his time adjustments, Mr. Hartel's gross adjustments totaled 45% for the parcel alone. Because of this sale property's location next to a cemetery, questions about its waste disposal system and the presence of easements, and the percentage of Mr. Hartel's gross adjustments for the parcel alone, the Board found that this sale property was not sufficiently comparable to the subject property. Furthermore, Mr. Hartel's failure to adjust for the improvements' differences negated the Board's ability to consider this sale property in a conventional comparable-sales approach.
Moreover, even though this sale property's outdated improvements were razed after the sale, Mr. Hartel still subtracted their assessed values from the sale price in prescribing a land value to this sale property. Presumably, this sale property was sold with the razing and demolition costs in mind. Accordingly, and assuming all other things being equal, it was not appropriate for Mr. Hartel to adjust the sale price thought to be attributable to the land by subtracting the improvements' assessed values to ascertain an indicated value for the subject property's parcel.
With respect to 91 N. Water Street, the Board found, as it did in its comparison to the 48 Witchwood Lane property, that this sale property's noisier, in-town location, next to a hotel and near the Chappy ferry, as well as its significantly smaller parcel size -- 0.33 acres compared to the subject property's 1.14 acres, and its near complete lack of privacy rendered this sale property not fundamentally comparable to the subject property. In addition, this sale property sold privately and was not marketed. Without considering his time adjustments, Mr. Hartel's adjustments for this sale property's parcel alone totaled 50%, indicating a lack of comparability.
With respect to 38 Cow Bay Road, the Board found, as it did in its comparison to the 48 Witchwood Lane property, that it is not waterfront property; it does not have access to a pier; and, unlike the subject property, it is located in an area of Edgartown that appeals to a non-boating, country club and golfing type of buyer. This sale property is also burdened by an 18-foot right of way, and its improvements are vastly different from the subject property's, negating the Board's ability to consider this sale property in a conventional sales-comparison approach. In addition, at the time of sale, these improvements totaled almost 30% of the overall assessment, which is inconsistent with the usual rationale and Mr. Hartel's reasoning for utilizing a valuation methodology which relies on a land-extraction analysis. Accordingly, the Board found that this sale property lacked basic comparability to the subject property and should not have been included in Mr. Hartel's methodology.
With respect to 12 Guernsey Lane, it was only a listing at all times relevant to the fiscal year 2008 and 2009 appeals, and the Board therefore limited its consideration here to the fiscal year 2010 appeal. For that fiscal year, Mr. Hartel applied gross adjustments totaling 35% to this sale property's parcel alone, which was improved with only two small cottages. The Board found that further adjustments would be needed to account for its improvement's differences with the subject property's. Because of this increased gross adjustment total and the limited description offered for this sale property, the Board found that it lacked basic comparability to the subject property.
Furthermore, and similar to what occurred with the sale property located at 27 Tower Hill Road, 12 Guernsey Lane's outdated improvements were razed after the sale and a new home was built. Notwithstanding this foreseeable development, Mr. Hartel still subtracted the improvements' assessed values from the sale price in developing an indicated value for the subject property's parcel. Presumably, this sale property was sold with the razing and demolition costs in mind. Accordingly, and assuming all other things being equal, it was not appropriate for Mr. Hartel to adjust the sale price by subtracting the assessed values of the improvements to ascertain an indicated value for the subject property's parcel.
With respect to 93 N. Water Street, it is located next to another sale property for fiscal years 2008 and 2009, 91 N. Water Street. Similar to that sale property, 93 N. Water Street is situated in the downtown area of Edgartown in a much busier, heavily trafficked, and less private section of town than the subject property. A hotel and the Chappy ferry are located nearby, which exposes this sale property to significant additional traffic and congestion. Moreover, this sale property's parcel size is only 0.25 acres compared to the subject property's 1.14 acres. Excluding his time adjustment, Mr. Hartel's gross adjustments for this sale property's parcel alone totaled 50%. For these reasons, the Board found that this sale property lacked basic comparability to the subject property.
With respect to 65 N. Water Street, the Board found that, similar to the other N. Water Street sale properties, this sale property lacked basic comparability to the subject property because it is also located in the downtown area of Edgartown in a much busier and heavily trafficked area than the subject property. In addition, this sale property is improved with a classic antique captain's home situated near the street. Mr. Hartel's failure to adjust for the improvements' differences negated the Board's ability to consider this sale property in a conventional comparable-sales approach. This improvement's assessed value is nearly $1 million, which represents approximately four times the assessed value of the subject property's improvements and almost 10% of the overall assessed value for this sale property. While not as pronounced a percentage as that for the 38 Cow Bay Road comparable sale property's improvement, it is still significant enough to undercut the usual rationale and Mr. Hartel's reasoning for using it in a valuation methodology that relies on a land-extraction analysis. Excluding his time adjustment, Mr. Hartel's gross adjustments for this sale property's parcel alone totaled 50%, a strong indication that it lacked comparability to the subject property.
With respect to 41 S. Water Street, the Board found, as it did in its comparison to the 48 Witchwood Lane property, that this sale property is situated much closer to the three N. Water Street sale properties than the subject property. It also has more property characteristics in common with them than the subject property, including a parcel size of only 0.26 acres compared to the subject property's 1.14 acres. Its improvements' assessed value is more than three-times that of the subject property's, and this sale property's improvements are substantially different from the subject property's, thereby evidencing a need for further adjustments for the Board to use it as evidence of value here; Mr. Hartel did not provide any. Even without a time adjustment, Mr. Hartel's gross adjustments for this sale property's parcel alone totaled 30%. For these reasons, the Board found that this sale property lacked basic comparability to the subject property.
On these bases and considering the infirmities with Mr. Hartel's valuation methodology and his purportedly comparable-sale properties, the Board found that the values which he proposed were unreliable, and there was insufficient evidence upon which the Board could rely to develop the fair cash value of the subject property for fiscal years 2008, 2009, and 2010 using a comparable-sale or alternative method of valuation.
18 Menamsha Avenue - Fiscal Years 2008, 2009, & 2010
The subject property, identified as map 29, parcel 75 for assessing purposes, is located in the prestigious Tower Hill-Edgartown Harbor neighborhood of Edgartown, which is primarily composed of estate-like properties. The subject property consists of an approximately 2.77-acre waterfront parcel improved with a recently renovated two-story custom home which has 10,151 square feet of gross living area and 5,821 square feet of living area. The assessments for 18 Menamsha Avenue for the fiscal years at issue are summarized in the following table.

Fiscal
Year Parcel
Assessment Improvements Assessment Total Assessment
2008 $11,737,200 $ 3,821,500 $15,558,700
2009 $11,777,600 $ 3,594,300 $15,371,900
2010 $11,123,500 $ 3,594,300 $14,717,800

The house has 13 rooms, including five bedrooms, as well as four full modern bathrooms and two modern half bathrooms. According to the property record card, the kitchen style is "luxurious," and the construction detail is graded as excellent plus. The residence has gas heat and central air conditioning. There is also an attached garage with living space above the car stalls. The interior walls of the residence are plaster and custom wood paneling, and the floors are hardwood with some carpeting. The exterior siding is wood shingle, as is the roof. Other amenities include several fireplaces, decks, an outbuilding with an outdoor shower, and a dock.
The home is situated on the parcel to maximize its privacy and its views of Edgartown Harbor. Also located on the subject property is a 575-square-foot deck constructed on a bluff overlooking the harbor. A heavy concentration of trees along the subject property's northern and southern boundaries affords a significant degree of privacy. Trees also line either side of the driveway approaching the residence.
To estimate the value of the subject property for fiscal years 2008, 2009, and 2010, Mr. Hartel used the same purportedly comparable-sale properties that he used to value the two previously discussed properties, 48 Witchwood Lane and 44 Green Hollow Road.
Mr. Hartel's updated adjustment grids for each of the fiscal years at issue are reproduced in the tables below.
Fiscal Year 2008
Subject Comparable Sale 1 Comparable Sale 2
Location 18 Menamsha Ave 27 Tower Hill Rd 91 N. Water St
Map & Parcel 29-75 29-127 20D-282
Parcel Size (acres) 2.77 1.50 0.33
Sale Price n/a $ 7,413,500 $ 9,000,000
Improvements AV $ 3,770,900 $ 533,200 $ 454,200
Extracted Land Value n/a $ 6,880,300 $ 8,545,800
Date of Sale 01/01/2007 04/14/2005 08/31/2006
Time Adjustment $ 1,169,651 (17%) $ 128,187 (1.5%)
Adjusted Subtotal $ 8,049,951 $ 8,673,987
Location Good Inferior 5% Superior -10%
Site Utility Size Good Similar 0% Similar 0%
View Average Superior -10% Superior -10%
Dock Good Similar 0% Similar 0%
Net Adjustment $( 402,498)- 5% $(1,734,797)-20%
Indicated Land Value $ 7,647,453 $ 6,939,190
Rounded Land Value $ 7,600,000 $ 6,900,000

Fiscal Year 2008 (cont.)

Subject Comparable Sale 3 Comparable Sale 4
Location 18 Menamsha Ave 38 Cow Bay Rd 12 Guernsey Ln
Map & Parcel 29-75 12-26 36-336
Parcel Size (acres) 2.77 2.60 2.10
Sale Price n/a $10,280,000 $ 8,500,000
Improvements AV $ 3,770,900 $ 2,969,000 $ 200,300
Extracted Land Value n/a $ 7,311,000 $ 8,299,700
Date of Sale 01/01/2007 04/07/2006 Listing
Time Adjustment $ 219,330 (3%) (0%)
Adjusted Subtotal $ 7,530,330 $ 8,299,700
Location Good Similar 0% Inferior 5%
Site Utility Size Good Similar 0% Similar 0%
View Average Superior - 5% Superior - 5%
Dock Good Inferior 20% Similar 0%
Net Adjustment $ 1,129,550 15% 0%
Indicated Land Value $ 8,659,880 $ 8,299,700
Rounded Land Value $ 8,700,000 $ 8,300,000

Mr. Hartel applied the most weight to comparable sale 3 and the least to comparable sale 4, in determining a rounded indicated land value for the subject property of $7,900,000. He then added back the $3,770,900 assessed value of the subject property's improvements and estimated the fair cash value of the subject property at $11,670,900 for fiscal year 2008.
In sum, of the four purportedly comparable-sale properties on which Mr. Hartel relied to estimate the fair cash value of the subject property for fiscal year 2008: one of them is a mere listing; another is not a waterfront property; a third is located in the congested downtown area, has a considerably smaller parcel, far less privacy, and a much smaller residence; and the fourth has a time adjustment of 17%, a location next to a cemetery, and a home that is considerably smaller and has an assessed value approximately seven times less than the subject property's.
Mr. Hartel's updated adjustment grid for fiscal year 2009 is substantially reproduced in the two tables below.
Fiscal Year 2009
Subject Comparable Sale 1 Comparable Sale 2
Location 18 Menamsha Ave 93 N. Water St 91 N. Water St
Map & Parcel 29-75 20D-281 20D-282
Parcel Size (acres) 2.77 0.25 0.33
Sale Price n/a $ 9,300,000 $ 9,000,000
Improvements AV $ 3,539,400 $ 416,000 $ 454,200
Extracted Land Value n/a $ 8,884,000 $ 8,545,800
Date of Sale 01/01/2008 02/22/2007 08/31/2006
Time Adjustment $ -488,620 (-5.5%) $ -444,382 (-5.2%)
Adjusted Subtotal $ 8,395,380 $ 8,101,418
Location Good Superior -10% Superior -10%
Site Utility Size Good Similar 0% Similar 0%
View Average Superior -10% Superior -10%
Dock Good Similar 0% Similar 0%
Net Adjustment $(1,679,076)-20% $(1,620,284)-20%
Indicated Land Value $ 6,716,304 $ 6,481,134
Rounded Land Value $ 6,700,000 $ 6,500,000

Fiscal Year 2009 (cont.)

Subject Comparable Sale 3 Comparable Sale 4
Location 18 Menamsha Ave 38 Cow Bay Rd 12 Guernsey Ln
Map & Parcel 29-75 12-26 36-336
Parcel Size (acres) 2.77 2.60 2.10
Sale Price n/a $10,280,000 $ 8,500,000
Improvements AV $ 3,539,400 $ 2,969,000 $ 200,300
Extracted Land Value n/a $ 7,311,000 $ 8,299,700
Date of Sale 01/01/2008 04/07/2006 Listing
Time Adjustment $ -263,196 (-3.6%) (0%)
Adjusted Subtotal $ 7,047,804 $ 8,299,700
Location Good Similar 0% Inferior 5%
Site Utility Size Good Similar 0% Similar 0%
View Average Superior - 5% Superior - 5%
Dock Good Inferior 20% Similar 0%
Net Adjustment ($1,057,171) 15% 0%
Indicated Land Value $ 8,104,975 $ 8,299,700
Rounded Land Value $ 8,100,000 $ 8,300,000

Mr. Hartel applied the most weight to comparable sale 3 and the least to comparable sale 4, in determining a rounded indicated land value for the subject property of $7,400,000. He then added back the $3,539,400 assessed value of the subject property's improvements and estimated the fair cash value of the subject property at $10,939,400 for fiscal year 2009.
In sum, of the four purportedly comparable-sale properties on which Mr. Hartel relied to estimate the value of the subject property for fiscal year 2009: one of them is a mere listing; two of them are located in the congested downtown area, have considerably smaller parcels, and have vastly different improvements which have assessed values approximately seven to eight times less than the subject property's; and the fourth contains an improvement with an assessed value approaching 30% of the sale price, which undermines the usual rationale and Mr. Hartel's reasoning for using it in a land-extraction methodology.
Mr. Hartel's updated adjustment grid for fiscal year 2010 is substantially reproduced in the two tables below.
Fiscal Year 2010
Subject Comparable Sale 1 Comparable Sale 2
Location 18 Menamsha Ave 65 N. Water St 93 N. Water St
Map & Parcel 29-75 20D-293 20D-281
Parcel Size (acres) 2.77 0.33 0.25
Sale Price n/a $11,750,000 $ 9,300,000
Improvements AV $ 3,539,400 $ 992,600 $ 416,000
Extracted Land Value n/a $10,757,400 $ 8,884,000
Date of Sale 01/01/2009 01/23/2009 02/22/2007
Time Adjustment (0%) $-1,510,280 (-17%)
Adjusted Subtotal $10,757,400 $ 7,373,720
Location Good Superior -10% Superior -10%
Site Utility Size Good Similar 0% Similar 0%
View Average Superior -10% Superior -10%
Dock Good Similar 0% Similar 0%
Net Adjustment $(2,151,480)-20% $(1,474,744)-20%
Indicated Land Value $ 8,605,920 $ 5,898,976
Rounded Land Value $ 8,600,000 $ 5,900,000

Fiscal Year 2010 (cont.)

Subject Comparable Sale 3 Comparable Sale 4
Location 18 Menamsha Ave 41 S. Water St 12 Guernsey Ln
Map & Parcel 29-75 20D-328 36-336
Parcel Size (acres) 2.77 0.26 2.10
Sale Price n/a $ 8,350,000 $ 7,500,000
Improvements AV $ 3,539,400 $ 731,700 $ 293,000
Extracted Land Value n/a $ 7,618,300 $ 7,207,000
Date of Sale 01/01/2009 12/05/2008 01/28/2009
Time Adjustment (0%) (0%)
Adjusted Subtotal $ 7,618,300 $ 7,207,000
Location Good Superior -10% Inferior 5%
Site Utility Size Good Similar 0% Similar 0%
View Average Superior -10% Superior - 5%
Dock Good Similar 0% Similar 0%
Net Adjustment $(1,523,660)-20% 0%
Indicated Land Value $ 6,094,640 $ 7,207,000
Rounded Land Value $ 6,100,000 $ 7,200,000

Mr. Hartel applied the most weight to comparable sale 4, in determining a rounded indicated land value for the subject property of $7,000,000. He then added back the $3,539,400 assessed value of the subject property's improvements and estimated the fair cash value of the subject property at $10,539,400 for fiscal year 2010.
In sum, of the four purportedly comparable-sale properties on which Mr. Hartel relied to estimate the value of the subject property for fiscal year 2010: two of them are located in the congested downtown area, have considerably smaller parcels, and vastly different and smaller homes; another has a significantly smaller parcel and has more property characteristics in common with the downtown sale properties than the subject property; and the fourth was improved with two smaller cottages at the time of sale compared to the subject property's recently renovated residence with approximately 5,800 square feet of living space and many amenities, plus an impressive free-standing deck set on a bluff with spectacular views.
The Board's Findings for the 18 Menamsha Avenue Property
With respect to 27 Tower Hill Road, the Board found that its location next to a cemetery and its outdated improvements, assessed at $533,200 compared to the $3,770,900 assessed value assigned to the subject property's improvements, which were razed after the sale, rendered this sale property not fundamentally comparable to the subject property. Mr. Hartel failed to provide the Board with recommendations for adjustments to account for the differences between the subject property's and this sale property's improvements thereby compromising the Board's ability to utilize this sale property in a conventional comparable-sales approach.
Moreover, even though this sale property's outdated improvements were razed after the sale, Mr. Hartel still subtracted their assessed values from the sale price in prescribing a land value to this sale property. Presumably, this sale property was sold with the razing and demolition costs in mind. Accordingly, and assuming all other things being equal, it was not appropriate for Mr. Hartel to adjust the sale price thought to be attributable to the land by subtracting the improvements' assessed values to ascertain an indicated value for the subject property's parcel.
With respect to 91 N. Water Street, the Board found that its noisier, in-town location, next to a hotel and near the Chappy ferry, as well as its significantly smaller parcel size - 0.33 acres compared to the subject property's 2.77 acres - and its improvement's age, style, and size - 1,914 square feet compared to the subject property's 10,151 square feet of gross living area and 5,821 square feet of living area - and its near complete lack of privacy, rendered this sale property not fundamentally comparable to the subject property. Furthermore, Mr. Hartel's failure to adjust for the improvements' differences negated the Board's ability to consider this sale property in a conventional comparable-sales approach. Moreover, this sale property sold privately and was not marketed.
With respect to 38 Cow Bay Road, the Board found that it is not waterfront property; it does not have access to a pier; and, unlike the subject property, it is located in an area of Edgartown that appeals to a non-boating, country club and golfing type of buyer. This sale property is also burdened by an 18-foot right of way, and its improvements at the time of sale totaled almost 30% of the overall assessment, which is inconsistent with the usual rationale and Mr. Hartel's reasoning for utilizing a valuation methodology that incorporates a land-extraction analysis. Accordingly, the Board found that this sale property lacked basic comparability to the subject property and should not have been included in Mr. Hartel's methodology.
With respect to 12 Guernsey Lane, it was only a listing at all times relevant to the fiscal year 2008 and 2009 appeals, and the Board therefore limited its consideration to the fiscal year 2010 appeal. While the Board found that the parcel associated with 12 Guernsey Lane was reasonably comparable to the subject property's parcel, this sale property lacked overall basic comparability because it was improved with only two small cottages, while the subject property was improved with a home with 10,151 square feet of gross living area and 5,821 square feet of living area. Substantial adjustments would be necessary for the Board to use it as evidence of value here, and Mr. Hartel did not suggest any.
Furthermore, and similar to what occurred with the sale property located at 27 Tower Hill Road, 12 Guernsey Lane's outdated improvements were razed after the sale and a new home was built. Notwithstanding this foreseeable development, Mr. Hartel still subtracted the improvements' assessed values from the sale price in developing an indicated value for the subject property's parcel. Presumably, this sale property was sold with the razing and demolition costs in mind. Accordingly, and assuming all other things being equal, it was not appropriate for Mr. Hartel to adjust the sale price by subtracting the assessed values of the improvements to ascertain an indicated value for the subject property's parcel.
With respect to 93 N. Water Street, it is located next to another sale property for fiscal years 2008 and 2009, 91 N. Water Street. Similar to that sale property, 93 N. Water Street is situated in the downtown area of Edgartown in a much busier, heavily trafficked, and less private section of town than the subject property. A hotel and the Chappy ferry are located nearby, which expose this sale property to significant additional traffic and congestion. Moreover, this sale property's parcel size is only 0.25 acres compared to the subject property's 2.77 acres. At the time of sale, this sale property was improved with an approximately 1,900-square-foot residence with eight rooms, four bedrooms, as well as 2.5 bathrooms compared to the subject property's improvement which is approximately three times that size. Once again, additional adjustments would be required for the Board to be able to use this sale property for valuation purposes, and Mr. Hartel failed to provide any For these reasons, the Board found that this sale property lacked basic comparability to the subject property.
With respect to 65 N. Water Street, the Board found that, similar to the other N. Water Street sale properties, this sale property lacked basic comparability to the subject property because it is located in the downtown area of Edgartown in a much busier and heavily trafficked area than the subject property. In addition, this sale property is improved with a significantly smaller, classic antique captain's home situated near the street, which would require additional adjustments for the Board to use it in a more traditional sales-comparison approach, and Mr. Hartel failed to recommend any. The improvement's assessed value is nearly $1 million, which represents almost 10% of the overall assessed value for this property. While not as pronounced a percentage as that for the 38 Cow Bay Road sale property's improvement, it is still significant enough to undercut the usual rationale and Mr. Hartel's reasoning for using it in a valuation methodology that relies on a land-extraction analysis.
With respect to 41 S. Water Street, the Board found that it is situated much closer to the three N. Water Street sale properties than the subject property. It also has more property characteristics in common with them than the subject property, including a parcel size of only 0.26 acres compared to the subject property's 2.77 acres and an improvement considerably smaller than the subject property's residence, which again would necessitate added adjustments for the Board to be able to use it in a conventional sales-comparison method, and Mr. Hartel failed to provide any such adjustments. For these reasons, the Board found that it lacked basic comparability to the subject property.
On these bases and considering the infirmities with Mr. Hartel's valuation methodology and his purportedly comparable-sale properties, the Board found that the values which he proposed were unreliable, and there was insufficient evidence upon which the Board could rely to develop the fair cash value of the subject property for fiscal years 2008, 2009, and 2010 using a comparable-sale or alternative method of valuation.

35 Green Hollow Road - Fiscal Year 2008
The subject property, identified as map 29, parcel 136.1, for assessing purposes, is located in the prestigious Tower Hill section of Edgartown. Its 2.01-acre parcel is improved with multiple structures including a principal residence, a guest house, a boat house, and a garage/barn, along with a gunite swimming pool which was 90% complete as of the relevant valuation and assessment date. The appellant also owns the abutting property to the north, parcel 135.1. The relevant assessment information for fiscal year 2008 is repeated in the table below.
Fiscal
Year Parcel
Assessment Improvements Assessment Total Assessment
2008 $10,632,600 $772,200 $11,404,800

The principal residence, which as originally constructed in the late 1930s, has a gross building area of over 3,000 square feet and 2,273 square feet of living space, along with three bedrooms, two bathrooms, central heat and air conditioning, and a wood deck. Despite its age, the subject property's property record card reports and the Board's view confirmed that the principal residence is in good condition. The guest house was built in 2001, and it has a gross building area in excess of 2,000 square feet and 946 square feet of gross living area with two bedrooms and two bathrooms. The guest house is heated, and it has central air conditioning and an unfinished basement. The 756-square-foot boat house is also a guest house with 400 square feet of living space and a 240-square-foot screened porch. The living quarters contain one bedroom and one bathroom, and have electric heat. The garage/barn is new as of the relevant valuation and assessment date and has approximately 1,000 square feet of space. The subject property also has a dock that was built about 1980.
The subject parcel is "bottle-shaped" with the bottle's neck extending to the water's edge and providing an approximate sixty-foot boundary with the water. The evidence indicates that the assessors reduced the standard waterfront condition factor to account for this "bottle-shape." The views from the subject property are of Edgartown Harbor, the waterfront, and Chappaquiddick Island, and vary in quality, and possibly control because of easement issues, depending upon one's location on the subject property.
To estimate the value of the subject property for fiscal year 2008, Mr. Hartel used the same purportedly comparable-sale properties that he used to value for that fiscal year the previously discussed subject properties, 18 Menamsha Avenue, 44 Green Hollow Road, and 48 Witchwood Lane.
Mr. Hartel's adjustment grid for fiscal year 2008 is reproduced in the tables below.
Fiscal Year 2008
Subject Comparable Sale 1 Comparable Sale 2
Location 35 Green Hollow Rd 27 Tower Hill Rd 91 N. Water St
Map & Parcel 29-136.1 29-127 20D-282
Parcel Size (acres) 2.01 1.50 0.33
Sale Price n/a $ 7,413,500 $ 9,000,000
Improvements AV $ 734,400 $ 533,200 $ 454,200
Extracted Land Value n/a $ 6,880,300 $ 8,545,800
Date of Sale 01/01/2007 04/14/2005 08/31/2006
Time Adjustment $ 1,169,651 (17%) $ 128,187 (1.5%)
Adjusted Subtotal $ 8,049,951 $ 8,673,987
Location Average Similar 0% Superior -10%
Site Utility Size Fair Superior -20% Superior -20%
View Fair Superior -10% Superior -10%
Dock Average Similar 0% Similar 0%
Net Adjustment $(2,414,985)-30% $(3,469,595)-40%
Indicated Land Value $ 5,634,966 $ 5,204,392
Rounded Land Value $ 5,600,000 $ 5,200,000

Fiscal Year 2008 (cont.)

Subject Comparable Sale 3 Comparable Sale 4
Location 35 Green Hollow Rd 38 Cow Bay Rd 12 Guernsey Ln
Map & Parcel 29-136.1 12-26 36-336
Parcel Size (acres) 2.01 2.60 2.10
Sale Price n/a $10,280,000 $ 8,500,000
Improvements AV $ 734,400 $ 2,969,000 $ 200,300
Extracted Land Value n/a $ 7,311,000 $ 8,299,700
Date of Sale 01/01/2007 04/07/2006 Listing
Time Adjustment $ 219,330 (3%) (0%)
Adjusted Subtotal $ 7,530,330 $ 8,299,700
Location Average Similar 0% Inferior 5%
Site Utility Size Fair Superior -10% Superior -20%
View Fair Superior -10% Superior -10%
Dock Average Inferior 20% Similar 0%
Net Adjustment 0% $(2,074,925)-25%
Indicated Land Value $ 7,530,330 $ 6,224,775
Rounded Land Value $ 7,500,000 $ 6,200,000

In his updated weighted average grid, Mr. Hartel applied the most weight, 50%, to comparable sale 1's rounded indicated land value, and the least weight, 10%, to comparable sale 4's, in recommending an estimated land value for the subject property of $6,000,000. He then added back the $734,400 assessed value of the subject property's improvements and estimated the fair cash value of the subject property at $6,734,400 for fiscal year 2008.
In sum, of the four purportedly comparable-sale properties on which Mr. Hartel relied to estimate the fair cash value of the subject property for fiscal year 2008: one of them is a mere listing; another is not a waterfront property; a third is located in the congested downtown area, has a considerably smaller parcel, and far less privacy; and the fourth has a time adjustment of 17%, a location next to a cemetery, and outdated improvements.
The Board's Findings for the 35 Green Hollow Road Property
With respect to 27 Tower Hill Road, the Board found that its location next to a cemetery and its outdated improvements, which were razed after the sale, rendered this sale property not fundamentally comparable to the subject property.
Moreover, even though this sale property's outdated improvements were razed after the sale, Mr. Hartel still subtracted their assessed values from the sale price in prescribing a land value to this sale property. Presumably, this sale property was sold with the razing and demolition costs in mind. Accordingly, and assuming all other things being equal, it was not appropriate for Mr. Hartel to adjust the sale price thought to be attributable to the land by subtracting the improvements' assessed values to ascertain an indicated value for the subject property's parcel.
With respect to 91 N. Water Street, the Board found that its noisier, in-town location, next to a hotel and near the Chappy ferry, as well as its significantly smaller parcel size -- 0.33 acres compared to the subject property's 2.01 acres -- and its near complete lack of privacy rendered this sale property not fundamentally comparable to the subject property. Moreover, this sale property sold privately and was not marketed.
With respect to 38 Cow Bay Road, the Board found that it is not waterfront property, it does not have access to a pier, and, unlike the subject property, it is located in an area of Edgartown that appeals to a non-boating, country club and golfing type of buyer. This sale property is also burdened by an 18-foot right of way, and its improvements at the time of sale totaled almost 30% of the overall assessment, which is inconsistent with the usual rationale and Mr. Hartel's reasoning for utilizing a valuation methodology which relies on a land-extraction analysis. Furthermore, Mr. Hartel's failure to adjust for the improvements' differences negated the Board's ability to consider this sale property in a conventional comparable-sales approach. Accordingly, the Board found that this sale property lacked basic comparability to the subject property and should not have been included in Mr. Hartel's methodology.
With respect to 12 Guernsey Lane, it was only a listing at all times relevant to the fiscal year 2008 and 2009 appeals, and the Board therefore found and ruled that it was not appropriate to include it in the subject property's valuation for fiscal year 2008.
On these bases and considering the infirmities with Mr. Hartel's valuation methodology and his purportedly comparable-sale properties, the Board found that the values which he proposed were unreliable, and there was insufficient evidence upon which the Board could rely to develop the fair cash value of the subject property for fiscal year 2008 using a comparable-sale or alternative method of valuation.
31 Tower Hill Road - Fiscal Year 2008
The subject property, identified as map 29, parcel 159, for assessing purposes, is located in the prestigious Tower Hill section of Edgartown. Its approximate 1.70-acre waterfront parcel, which is situated on Edgartown Harbor, is improved with three buildings - a main house with approximately 4,027 square feet of living area, an approximate 192-square-foot, seasonal, cabin-like structure with plumbing and a small porch and deck, and an approximate 200-square-foot boat house that is used primarily for storage. In addition, the subject property has a deep water dock and an impressive sandy beach. The relevant assessment information for fiscal year 2008 is repeated in the table below.
Fiscal
Year Parcel
Assessment Improvements Assessment Total Assessment
2008 $11,187,200 $857,100 $12,044,300

The seasonal main house contains eight bedrooms and five bathrooms and has an approximate 300-square-foot porch with a second floor deck above it. There is also a two-car garage. This home is situated on a rise and has spectacular views of Edgartown Harbor and Chappaquiddick. The main house also has a new septic system that was installed in 2001-2002 to accommodate an eight-bedroom home. Photographs of the interior of the home indicate that it is appropriately finished for the neighborhood which is composed primarily of large seasonal homes.
The subject parcel is relatively long with a width of about 166 feet at the water's edge where it terminates in a private sandy beach area. The subject property is also very private with heavily vegetated and treed undeveloped land to the west and south, Edgartown Harbor to the east, and an ancient and rarely visited cemetery and a sole neighbor, 27 Tower Hill Road, to the north. This northern boundary also contains heavy vegetation and trees. A 16-foot wide right of way runs along the northern boundary of the subject property from Green Hollow Road to the waterfront. Legal access to the right of way is limited to the owners of the abutting property, 27 Tower Hill Road.
To estimate the value of the subject property for fiscal year 2008, Mr. Hartel used the same purportedly comparable-sale properties that he used to value for that fiscal year the previously discussed subject properties, 35 Green Hollow Road, 18 Menamsha Avenue, 44 Green Hollow Road, and 48 Witchwood Lane.
Mr. Hartel's adjustment grid for fiscal year 2008 is reproduced in the tables below.
Fiscal Year 2008
Subject Comparable Sale 1 Comparable Sale 2
Location 31 Tower Hill Rd 27 Tower Hill Rd 91 N. Water St
Map & Parcel 29-159 29-127 20D-282
Parcel Size (acres) 1.70 1.50 0.33
Sale Price n/a $ 7,413,500 $ 9,000,000
Improvements AV $ 785,800 $ 533,200 $ 454,200
Extracted Land Value n/a $ 6,880,300 $ 8,545,800
Date of Sale 01/01/2007 04/14/2005 08/31/2006
Time Adjustment $ 1,169,651 (17%) $ 128,187 (1.5%)
Adjusted Subtotal $ 8,049,951 $ 8,673,987
Location Average Similar 0% Superior -10%
Site Utility Size Average/Fair Superior -10% Superior -10%
View Good Similar 0% Superior - 5%
Dock Average Similar 0% Similar 0%
Net Adjustment $( 804,995)-10% $(2,168,497)-25%
Indicated Land Value $ 7,244,956 $ 6,505,490
Rounded Land Value $ 7,200,000 $ 6,500,000

Fiscal Year 2008 (cont.)

Subject Comparable Sale 3 Comparable Sale 4
Location 31 Tower Hill Rd 38 Cow Bay Rd 12 Guernsey Ln
Map & Parcel 29-159 12-26 36-336
Parcel Size (acres) 1.70 2.60 2.10
Sale Price n/a $10,280,000 $ 8,500,000
Improvements AV $ 785,800 $ 2,969,000 $ 200,300
Extracted Land Value n/a $ 7,311,000 $ 8,299,700
Date of Sale 01/01/2007 04/07/2006 Listing
Time Adjustment $ 219,330 (3%) (0%)
Adjusted Subtotal $ 7,530,330 $ 8,299,700
Location Average Similar 0% Inferior 5%
Site Utility Size Average/Fair Superior -10% Superior -10%
View Good Similar 0% Inferior 5%
Dock Average Inferior 20% Similar 0%
Net Adjustment $ 753,033 10% 0%
Indicated Land Value $ 8,283,363 $ 8,299,700
Rounded Land Value $ 8,300,000 $ 8,300,000

In his updated weighted average grid, Mr. Hartel applied the most weight, 35% and 30%, to the rounded indicated land values for comparable sale 1 and comparable sale 2, respectively, and the least weight, 10%, to comparable sale 4's, in recommending an estimated land value for the subject property of $7,400,000. He then added back the $785,800 assessed value of the subject property's improvements and estimated the fair cash value of the subject property at $8,185,800 for fiscal year 2008.
In sum, of the four purportedly comparable-sale properties on which Mr. Hartel relied to estimate the fair cash value of the subject property for fiscal year 2008: one is a mere listing; another is not a waterfront property; a third is located in the congested downtown area, has a considerably smaller parcel, and far less privacy; and the fourth, while sharing some similar attributes, has a time adjustment of 17%, outdated improvements, and other differences for which Mr. Hartel did not adequately account.
The Board's Findings for the 31 Tower Hill Road Property
With respect to 91 N. Water Street, the Board found that its noisier, in-town location, next to a hotel and near the Chappy ferry, as well as its significantly smaller parcel size - 0.33 acres compared to the subject property's 1.70 acres - and its near complete lack of privacy rendered this sale property not fundamentally comparable to the subject property. Moreover, this sale property sold privately and was not marketed.
With respect to 38 Cow Bay Road, the Board found that it is not waterfront property, it does not have access to a pier, and, unlike the subject property, it is located in an area of Edgartown that appeals to a non-boating, country club and golfing type of buyer. This sale property is also burdened by an 18-foot right of way, and its improvements at the time of sale totaled almost 30% of the overall assessment, which is inconsistent with the usual rationale and Mr. Hartel's reasoning for utilizing a valuation methodology which relies on a land-extraction analysis. Furthermore, Mr. Hartel's failure to adjust for the improvements' differences negated the Board's ability to consider this sale property in a conventional comparable-sales approach. Accordingly, the Board found that this sale property lacked basic comparability to the subject property and should not have been included in Mr. Hartel's methodology.
With respect to 12 Guernsey Lane, it was only a listing at all times relevant to this appeal, and the Board therefore found and ruled that it was not appropriate to include it as a comparable sale property in the valuation for fiscal year 2008.
With respect to 27 Tower Hill Road, the Board found that while it abuts the subject property and shares some similar attributes with the subject property, Mr. Hartel did not adequately account for its differences with the subject property for such factors as view and the stigma associated with their location next to a cemetery. Unlike Mr. Hartel, the Board found that the site size and utility of these two properties were similar. Moreover, and consistent with all of his analyses, Mr. Hartel did not account for differences between this sale property's and the subject property's improvements (except for their interests in docks). This sale property also required a time adjustment of 17%.
Moreover, even though this sale property's outdated improvements were razed after the sale, Mr. Hartel still subtracted their assessed values from the sale price in prescribing a land value to this sale property. Presumably, this sale property was sold with the razing and demolition costs in mind. Accordingly, and assuming all other things being equal, it was not appropriate for Mr. Hartel to adjust the sale price thought to be attributable to the land by subtracting the improvements' assessed values to ascertain an indicated value for the subject property's parcel.
On these bases and considering the infirmities with Mr. Hartel's valuation methodology and his purportedly comparable-sale properties, the Board found that the values which he proposed were unreliable, and there was insufficient evidence upon which the Board could rely to develop the fair cash value of the subject property for fiscal year 2008 using a comparable-sales or alternative method of valuation.
52 Witchwood Lane - Fiscal Years 2008, 2009, & 2010
This 1.5-acre vacant parcel of waterfront land, which is identified for assessing purposes as map 36, parcel 303.13, is improved with a dock but is otherwise completely undeveloped. It is the northern and only undeveloped parcel of a multi-parcel family compound, which the owners purchased from their family. The subject property is situated within the exclusive and private Witchwood Lane subdivision which is located off of Katama Road and described in the section of the Findings discussing 48 Witchwood Lane. The relevant assessment information for each of the fiscal years at issue is repeated in the table below.
Fiscal
Year Parcel
Assessment Improvements Assessment Total Assessment
2008 $ 9,036,100 n/a $ 9,036,100
2009 $ 9,036,100 n/a $ 9,036,100
2010 $ 8,713,500 n/a $ 8,713,500

Heavy vegetation and long driveways provide privacy for the properties located within the subdivision from both the road and each other. The dock that is located on the subject property is shared with other Witchwood Lane waterfront property owners, while a dock on an abutting property is shared with the owners of the subject property, among others. There are easements providing access to the docks. Residents of this small neighborhood also share common tennis facilities.
The subject property's view to the north benefits from a view easement over part of the abutting 48 Witchwood Lane property, while its view to the east profits from a view easement over sixty percent of the subject property's coastal bank that is for the benefit of 48 Witchwood Lane. The precise breadth and extent of the views available from the possible locations of a dwelling on the subject property were never properly described.
To estimate the value of the subject property for fiscal year 2008, Mr. Hartel used as his purportedly comparable-sale properties in his methodology: 27 Tower Hill Road (comparable sale 1); 25 Leland's Path (comparable sale 2); 38 Cow Bay Road (comparable sale 3); 153 Cow Bay Road (comparable sale 4); and 139 & 145 Cow Bay Road (comparable sale 5). Mr. Hartel also used 27 Tower Hill Road and 38 Cow Bay Road to estimate the values of the other subject properties. Descriptions of these two properties are contained in a preceding section of the Findings discussing 48 Witchwood Lane.
Comparable sale 2, 25 Leland's Path, is an approximately 16.4-acre waterfront parcel, improved with a 7,191-square-foot dwelling. The parcel is very long and narrow. The dwelling, which was built in 1999, is a New England custom-style home in excellent condition that contains ten rooms, including six bedrooms, as well as six bathrooms. Comparable sale 2 was purchased in November, 2005, for $7,500,000 after being marketed for about 7.5 months. Excluding his time adjustment of 8.13%, Mr. Hartel's gross adjustments totaled 75%.
Comparable sale 4, 153 Cow Bay Road, is an approximately 7.00-acre, technically non-waterfront parcel, which abuts the partially eroded Cow Bay Association beach, and is improved with several buildings. One is a 3,567-square-foot, 1.5-story, Cape Cod-style dwelling, with four bedrooms and 2.5 bathrooms; another is a 2,481-square-foot, 1.5-story, Cape Cod-style dwelling, with three bedrooms and two bathrooms; and the third is a 336-square-foot camp that contains one bedroom and one bathroom. Comparable sale 4 was purchased in January, 2007 for $13,875,000. In his appraisal report, Mr. Hartel acknowledged that "[t]his property was not exposed to the open market." Mr. Hartel asserted that this sale property was part of an assemblage with his comparable sale 5, thus creating plottage value which was reflected in the sale price. Mr. Hartel therefore adjusted the sale price of this property downward by 25% to account for this condition of sale and then by another 35% in gross to account for differences with the subject property.
Comparable sale 5, 139 & 145 Cow Bay Road, are a combined 6.50 acres in size. Similar to comparable sale 4, this sale property is technically a non-waterfront property which abuts the partially eroded Cow Bay Association beach. This sale property is improved with a 1,678-square-foot, 1.5-story, Cape Cod-style dwelling with three bedrooms and one bathroom. Comparable sale 5 was purchased in January, 2007, on the same day that comparable sale 4 was purchased. Nominally different entities with the same address purchased comparable sales 4 and 5. Mr. Hartel asserted that this sale property was part of an assemblage with his comparable sale 4, but he did not adjust for any plottage value with respect to this comparable, instead relying solely on his adjustment to comparable sale 4 as adequately accounting for this factor. Without any time adjustment, Mr. Hartel's gross adjustments totaled 25%.
Mr. Hartel's adjustment grid for fiscal year 2008 is substantially reproduced in the two tables below.
Fiscal Year 2008
Subject Comparable Sale 1 Comparable Sale 2
Location 52 Witchwood Ln 27 Tower Hill Rd 25 Leland's Path
Map & Parcel 36-303.13 29-127 35-42.1
Parcel Size (acres) 1.50 1.50 16.40
Sale Price n/a $ 7,413,500 $ 7,500,000
Improvements AV n/a $ 841,500* $ 3,439,100
Extracted Land Value n/a $ 6,572,000 $ 4,060,90000
Condition of Sale (0%) (0%)
Date of Sale 01/01/2007 04/14/2005 11/08/2005
Time Adjustment $ 1,248,680 (19%)* $ 330,151 (8.13%)
Adjusted Subtotal $ 7,820,680 $ 4,391,051
Location Good Similar 0% Inferior 50%
Site Utility Size Fair Superior - 5% Superior -10%
View Average Superior -10% Superior -10%
Dock Shared Right Superior -15% None 5%
Net Adjustment $(2,346,204)-30% $ 1,536,868 35%
Indicated Land Value $ 5,474,476 $ 5,927,919
Rounded Land Value $ 5,500,000 $ 5,900,000
* According to the property record cards in evidence and Mr. Hartel's fiscal year 2008 adjustment grids for the other subject properties, which included 27 Tower Hill Road as a comparable, the fiscal year 2008 assessed value for this sale's improvements is $533,200 and his time adjustment is only 17%.
Fiscal Year 2008 (cont.)

Comparable Sale 3 Comparable Sale 4 Comparable Sale 5
Location 38 Cow Bay Road 153 Cow Bay Rd 139 & 145 Cow Bay Rd
Map & Parcel 12-26 13-3 13-1 & 13-2
Parcel Size (acres) 2.60 7.00 6.50
Sale Price $ 10,280,000 $ 13,875,000 $ 6,125,000
Improvements AV $ 2,969,000 $ 788,500 $ 182,900
Extracted Land Value $ 7,311,000 $ 13,086,500 $ 5,942,100
Condition of Sale (0%) $ 3,468,750 (25%) (0%)
Date of Sale 04/07/2006 01/18/2007 01/18/2007
Time Adjustment $ 219,330 (3%) (0%) (0%)
Adjusted Subtotal $ 7,530,330 $ 9,617,750 $ 5,942,100
Location Similar 0% Similar 0% Similar 0%
Site Utility Size Superior - 5% Superior -20% Superior -10%
View Superior - 5% Superior -10% Superior -10%
Dock None 5% None 5% None 5%
Net Adjustment $ (376,517) - 5% $ (2,404,438)-25% $( 891,315)-15%
Indicated Land Value $ 7,530,330 $ 7,213,313 $ 5,050,785
Rounded Land Value $ 7,500,000 $ 7,200,000 $ 5,100,000

In his weighted average grid, Mr. Hartel applied the most weight, 60%, to comparable sale 1's rounded indicated land value, and the least weight, 10% each, to his other four comparable-sale properties, in recommending a rounded indicated land value for the subject property of $5,700,000. Relying on this value, he estimated the fair cash value of the subject property at $5,700,000 for fiscal year 2008.
In sum, of the five purportedly comparable-sale properties on which Mr. Hartel relied to estimate the fair cash value of the subject property for fiscal year 2008: two of them necessitated excessive adjustments; several others are technically not, or are not, waterfront properties and are part of an assemblage that was not appropriately analyzed; another contained contradictory information and a time adjustment of 19% and gross adjustments for the parcel alone, not considering time, totaling 35%.
To estimate the value of the subject property for fiscal year 2009, Mr. Hartel continued to use as his purportedly comparable-sale properties in his methodology: 153 Cow Bay Road (comparable sale 1); 139 & 145 Cow Bay Road (comparable sale 2); and 38 Cow Bay Road (comparable sale 3); but replaced 27 Tower Hill Road and 25 Leland's Path with 103 Chappaquiddick Road (comparable sale 4) and 12 Caleb Pond Lane (comparable sale 5).
Comparable sale 4 for this fiscal year, 103 Chappaquiddick Road, is located on Chappaquiddick Island near the Chappy ferry. Comparable sale 4 has a 1.00-acre, beachfront parcel that does not conform to current zoning regulations. At the time of sale, it was improved with an approximately 1,468-square-foot, 1.5-story, cottage with four bedrooms and one bathroom. This sale property was purchased in September, 2007 for $3,100,000. Excluding his time adjustment of 1.94%, Mr. Hartel's gross adjustments totaled 65%.
Comparable sale 5 for this fiscal year, 12 Caleb Pond Lane, is also located on Chappaquiddick Island near the Chappy ferry. Comparable sale 5 has a 2.10-acre waterfront parcel that, at the time of sale, was improved with multiple structures including: an approximately 1,577-square-foot main house with two bedrooms and two bathrooms; an approximately 544-square-foot guest cottage with two bedrooms and one bathroom; an approximately 378-square foot artist's studio; as well as a lap pool and croquet court. This sale property, which sits on a promontory, has, in the words of Mr. Hartel, "unfettered views both down harbor to South Beach and to the inner harbor." It was purchased in October, 2007 for $5,000,000. Excluding his time adjustment of 1.67%, Mr. Hartel's gross adjustments totaled 85%.
Mr. Hartel's adjustment grid for fiscal year 2009 is substantially reproduced in the two tables below.
Fiscal Year 2009
Subject Comparable Sale 1 Comparable Sale 2
Location 52 Witchwood Ln 153 Cow Bay Rd 139 & 145 Cow Bay Rd
Map & Parcel 36-303.13 13-3 13-1 & 13-2
Parcel Size (acres) 1.50 7.00 6.50
Sale Price n/a $ 13,875,000 $ 6,125,000
Improvements AV n/a $ 788,500 $ 182,900
Extracted Land Value n/a $ 13,086,500 $ 5,942,100
Condition of Sale $ 3,468,750 (25%) (0%)
Date of Sale 01/01/2008 01/18/2007 01/18/2007
Time Adjustment (0%) (0%)
Adjusted Subtotal $ 9,617,750 $ 5,942,100
Location Good Similar 0% Similar 0%
Site Utility Size Fair Superior -20% Superior -10%
View Average Superior -10% Superior -10%
Dock Shared Right None 5% None 5%
Net Adjustment $(2,404,438)-25% $( 891,315)-15%
Indicated Land Value $ 7,213,313 $ 5,050,785
Rounded Land Value $ 7,200,000 $ 5,100,000

Fiscal Year 2009 (cont.)

Comparable Sale 3 Comparable Sale 4 Comparable Sale 5
Location 38 Cow Bay Road 103 Chappaquiddick Rd 12 Caleb Pond Lane
Map & Parcel 12-26 30-67.2 30-36
Parcel Size (acres) 2.60 1.00 2.10
Sale Price $ 10,280,000 $ 3,100,000 $ 5,000,000
Improvements AV $ 2,969,000 $ 160,800 $ 454,400
Extracted Land Value $ 7,311,000 $ 2,939,200 $ 4,545,600
Condition of Sale (0%) (0%) (0%)
Date of Sale 04/07/2006 09/17/2007 10/05/2007
Time Adjustment $ (263,196) (3.6%) $ 57,020 (1.94%) $ (75,912) (1.67%)
Adjusted Subtotal $ 7,047,804 $ 2,882,180 $ 4,469,688
Location Similar 0% Inferior 50% Inferior 50%
Site Utility Size Superior - 5% Superior - 5% Superior -10%
View Superior - 5% Superior - 5% Superior -10%
Dock None 5% None 5% Superior -15%
Net Adjustment $ (352,390) - 5% $ 1,296,981 45% $ 670,453 15%
Indicated Land Value $ 6,695,414 $ 4,179,160 $ 5,140,142
Rounded Land Value $ 6,700,000 $ 4,200,000 $ 5,100,000

In his weighted average grid, Mr. Hartel applied equal weight, 20%, to all of his purportedly comparable-sale properties, in recommending a rounded indicated land value for the subject property of $5,700,000. Relying on this value, he estimated the fair cash value of the subject property at $5,700,000 for fiscal year 2009.
In sum, of the five purportedly comparable-sale properties on which Mr. Hartel relied to estimate the value of the subject property for fiscal year 2009: two of them are located on Chappaquiddick Island and required excessive adjustments, excluding time adjustments; several others are technically not, or are not, waterfront properties and are part of an assemblage that was not appropriately analyzed; and the fifth contains an improvement with an assessed value approaching 30% of the sale price, which undermines the usual rationale and Mr. Hartel's reasoning for using it in a land-extraction methodology.
To estimate the value of the subject property for fiscal year 2010, Mr. Hartel continued to use as his purportedly comparable-sale properties in his methodology: 103 Chappaquiddick Road (comparable sale 1) and 12 Caleb Pond Lane (comparable sale 4); but replaced 153 Cow Bay Road, 38 Cow Bay Road, and 139 & 145 Cow Bay Road with 12 Guernsey Lane (comparable sale 2), which he also used as a comparable sale in his appraisal of the other subject properties and is described in the section of the Findings discussing 48 Witchwood Lane, and 36 Down Harbor Road (comparable sale 3).
Comparable sale 3 for fiscal year 2010, 36 Down Harbor Road, is an approximately 1.60-acre, non-waterfront parcel with impressive views, which was unimproved at the time of sale but approved for the construction of a four-bedroom main residence with a swimming pool and two-car carriage house. This sale property is associated with the Down Harbor Association whose amenities include a shared dock and private beach on which this sale property fronts. This sale property was purchased in June, 2008 for $3,050,000. Excluding his time adjustment of 6.38%, Mr. Hartel's gross adjustments totaled 25%.
The assessors classified the sale of this property as a non-arm's-length transaction because it involved unconventional financing -- a private mortgage from an abutter in exchange for a view easement. Moreover, the sale of this property resulted from an assignment of an option agreement to the eventual purchaser, which had been originally granted to an abutter for $400,000 some 7.5 months prior to the actual sale of this property for the price recited in the option agreement.
Mr. Hartel's adjustment grid for fiscal year 2010 is substantially reproduced in the two tables below.

Fiscal Year 2010
Subject Comparable Sale 1 Comparable Sale 2
Location 52 Witchwood Ln 103 Chappaquiddick Rd 12 Guernsey Lane
Map & Parcel 36-303.13 30-67.2 36-336
Parcel Size (acres) 1.50 1.00 2.10
Sale Price n/a $ 3,100,000 $ 7,500,000
Improvements AV n/a $ 160,800 $ 293,000
Extracted Land Value n/a $ 2,939,200 $ 7,207,000
Condition of Sale (0%) (0%)
Date of Sale 01/01/2008 09/17/2007 01/28/2009
Time Adjustment $ (398,556) (13.56%) $ (79,277) (1.1%)
Adjusted Subtotal $ 2,540,644 $ 7,127,723
Location Good Inferior 50% Similar 0%
Site Utility Size Fair Superior - 5% Superior -10%
View Average Superior - 5% Superior -10%
Dock Shared Right None 5% Superior -15%
Net Adjustment $ 1,143,290 45% $(2,494,703)-35%
Indicated Land Value $ 3,683,934 $ 4,633,020
Rounded Land Value $ 3,700,000 $ 4,600,000

Fiscal Year 2010 (cont.)
Subject Comparable Sale 3 Comparable Sale 4
Location 52 Witchwood Ln 36 Down Harbor Road 12 Caleb Pond Lane
Map & Parcel 36-303.13 36-339 30-36
Parcel Size (acres) 1.50 1.60 2.10
Sale Price n/a $ 3,050,000 $ 5,000,000
Improvements AV n/a $ 454,400
Extracted Land Value n/a $ 3,050,000 $ 4,545,600
Condition of Sale (0%) (0%)
Date of Sale 01/01/2008 06/11/2008 10/5/2007
Time Adjustment $(194,590) (6.38%) $(599,565) (13.19%)
Adjusted Subtotal $ 2,855,410 $ 3,946,035
Location Good Similar 0% Inferior 50%
Site Utility Size Fair Inferior 10% Superior -10%
View Average Superior - 5% Superior -10%
Dock Shared Right Inferior 10% Superior -15%
Net Adjustment $ 428,312 15% $ 591,905 15%
Indicated Land Value $ 3,283,722 $ 4,537,941
Rounded Land Value $ 3,300,000 $ 4,500,000

In his weighted average grid, Mr. Hartel applied the most weight, 70%, to comparable sale 2, and equal weight, 10%, to his remaining three comparable-sale properties, in recommending a rounded indicated land value for the subject property of $4,400,000. Relying on this value, he estimated the fair cash value of the subject property at $4,400,000 for fiscal year 2010.
In sum, of the four purportedly comparable-sale properties on which Mr. Hartel relied to estimate the value of the subject property for fiscal year 2010: two of them required extensive adjustment (65% and 85%, not including additional time adjustments of 13.56% and 13.19%, respectively); another was non-waterfront property and involved unconventional financing and an option agreement for which Mr. Hartel did not account; and the fourth required a gross adjustment of 35% for the parcel alone, not considering time, and Mr. Hartel's analysis of the improvements' value was flawed.
The Board's Findings for the 52 Witchwood Lane Property
With respect to 27 Tower Hill Road, the Board found that Mr. Hartel's analysis included a different time adjustment and a different assessed value for this sale property's improvement than those included in his previous analyses for the other subject properties. Even though this sale property's outdated improvements were razed after the sale, Mr. Hartel still subtracted their assessed values from the sale price in estimating the value of the subject property - a vacant parcel. Presumably, this sale property was sold with the razing and demolition costs in mind. Accordingly, and assuming all other things being equal, it was not appropriate for Mr. Hartel to adjust the sale price by subtracting the improvements' assessed values to ascertain an indicated value for the subject vacant parcel. In addition, Mr. Hartel's gross adjustments totaled nearly 40%, including his time adjustment. For these reasons, the Board found that Mr. Hartel's analysis of this comparable sale property was fatally flawed.
With respect to 25 Leland's Path, its improvements at the time of sale, accounted for almost 50% of this sale property's overall assessed value, which is inconsistent with the usual rationale and Mr. Hartel's reasoning for utilizing a valuation methodology which relies on a land-extraction analysis. In addition, Mr. Hartel's gross adjustments here, for the parcel alone, totaled 75% - well beyond the customary mark for rejecting comparability. For these reasons, the Board found that this sale property lacked basic comparability to the subject property.
With respect to 38 Cow Bay Road, the Board found that it is not waterfront property, it does not have access to a pier, and, unlike the subject property, it is located in an area of Edgartown that appeals to a non-boating, country club and golfing type of buyer. Moreover, this sale property's improvements at the time of sale totaled almost 30% of the overall assessment, which, like the previous sale property, is inconsistent with the usual rationale and Mr. Hartel's reasoning for utilizing a valuation methodology which relies on a land-extraction analysis. For these reasons, the Board found that this sale property was not comparable to the subject property and should not have been included in Mr. Hartel's methodology.
With respect to 153 Cow Bay Road, it is seven acres compared to the subject property's 1.5-acre parcel; it is technically non-waterfront property; it contains several improvements while the subject property has none; and, as Mr. Hartel admits, it was "not exposed to the open market." Moreover, including his 25% "plottage" adjustment, Mr. Hartel's gross adjustments for this sale property totaled 60%. Mr. Hartel proposed a "plottage" adjustment for this sale property because of its purported assemblage with his next comparable sale property, 139 & 145 Cow Bay Road, which contains 6.5 acres compared to the subject property's 1.5-acre parcel and is also technically a non-waterfront property. Curiously, Mr. Hartel did not apply any plottage value to the sale price of this sale property despite using it as a separate comparable sale. For all of these reasons, the Board found that these sale properties, considered either separately as two or as an assemblage, were not comparable to the subject property.
With respect to 103 Chappaquiddick Road, it is a one-acre parcel located on Chappaquiddick Island near the Chappy ferry. Excluding his time adjustment, Mr. Hartel's gross adjustments totaled 65%, strongly indicating that this sale property is not comparable to the subject property, which the Board so found.
With respect to 12 Caleb Pond Lane, it is also located on Chappaquiddick Island. Excluding his time adjustment, Mr. Hartel's gross adjustments totaled 85%. Moreover, at the date of sale, this sale property's improvements were assessed at between 9% and 10% of the sale property's overall assessed value. As previously discussed regarding several other sale properties, this improvement percentage is significant enough to undercut the usual rationale and Mr. Hartel's reasoning for using it in a valuation methodology premised on land extraction. For these reasons the Board found that this sale property was not comparable to the subject property and should not have been used in Mr. Hartel's methodology.
With respect to 12 Guernsey Lane, the Board noted that Mr. Hartel also used this sale property to value the subject property's neighbor -- 48 Witchwood Lane -- for fiscal year 2010, as well as earlier fiscal years. The Board found that 48 Witchwood Lane's parcel and the subject property's parcel were similar. Oddly, Mr. Hartel's percentage adjustments for this sale property's parcel when compared to the subject property's parcel are more than double those that he proposed when compared to 48 Witchwood Lane's parcel. The effect of this discrepancy is to reduce this sale property's sale price by $2,500,000 when compared to the subject property, as opposed to only $1,000,000 when compared to its neighbor. In addition, and similar to what occurred with the sale property located at 27 Tower Hill Road, 12 Guernsey Lane's outdated improvements were razed after the sale and a new home was built. Notwithstanding this foreseeable development, Mr. Hartel still subtracted the improvements' assessed values from the sale price in developing an indicated value for the subject property -- a vacant parcel. Presumably, this sale property was sold with the razing and demolition costs in mind. Accordingly, and assuming all other things being equal, it was not appropriate for Mr. Hartel to adjust the sale price by subtracting the assessed values of the improvements to ascertain an indicated value for the subject vacant parcel. For these reasons, the Board found that Mr. Hartel's analysis of this sale property was gravely flawed.
With respect to 36 Down Harbor Road, the assessors classified the sale of this sale property as a non-arm's-length transaction because the sale resulted from unconventional financing -- a private mortgage from an abutter in exchange for a view easement -- and the assignment of an option agreement for which the assignor had paid $400,000 approximately 7.5 months before the sale. The Board likewise found that these anomalies required at least some consideration and adjustment. Mr. Hartel, however, did not adjust, account for, or even consider the effects of the option agreement or private unconventional financing on the sale price. Because of these omissions, the Board found that Mr. Hartel's inclusion and treatment of this sale property in his analysis was faulty.
On these bases and considering the infirmities with Mr. Hartel's valuation methodology and his purportedly comparable-sale properties, the Board found that the values which he proposed were unreliable, and there was insufficient evidence upon which the Board could rely to develop the fair cash value of the subject property for fiscal years 2008, 2009, and 2010 using a comparable-sale or alternative method of valuation.
Ms. Resendes' Testimony

The appellants also called Edgartown's Principal Assessor, JoAnn Resendes, to testify. During the appellants' examination of her, Ms. Resendes admitted that there were errors in the town's LA-3 report submitted to the Department of Revenue (the "DOR") in connection with Edgartown's fiscal year 2008 Triennial Certification process. These errors included the inadvertent omission of a sale and the inclusion of an invalid sale. Even assuming that these and other omissions, additions, or misclassifications occurred and may have affected the town's valuations, the appellants concede that: "It is not . . . possible [relying on this information] for [appellants], or anyone else for that matter, to prove the exact amount of overvaluation . . . ." See appellants' Post-Hearing Memoranda. Without significantly more evidence on how and the extent to which the errors raised by the appellants likely affected assessed values throughout Edgartown or, more particularly, the assessed values of the subject properties for the fiscal years at issue, the Board was unable to draw any reasonable valuation conclusions or determine any valuation abatements relying on the record in this regard.
Conclusion
On these bases, the Board found that the appellants failed to prove that the subject properties were overvalued for the fiscal years at issue. Accordingly, the Board decided these appeals for the assessors and herewith promulgates decisions for the appellee.

OPINION
The assessors have a statutory and constitutional obligation to assess all real property at its full and fair cash value. Part II, c. 1, § 1, art. 4, of the Constitution of the Commonwealth; art. 10 of the Declaration of Rights; G.L. c. 59, §§ 38, 52. See Coomey v. Assessors of Sandwich, 367 Mass. 836, 837 (1975)(citations omitted). Fair cash value means fair market value, which 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 of proving that the property has a lower value than that assessed. "'The burden of proof is upon the petitioner to make out its right as [a] matter of law to [an] abatement of the tax.'" Schlaiker v. Assessors of Great Barrington, 365 Mass. 243, 245 (1974)(quoting Judson Freight Forwarding Co. v. Commonwealth, 242 Mass. 47, 55 (1922)). "[T]he board is entitled to 'presume that the valuation made by the assessors [is] valid unless the taxpayers sustain[] the burden of proving the contrary.'" General Electric Co. v. Assessors of Lynn, 393 Mass. 591, 598 (1984)(quoting Schlaiker, 365 Mass. at 245).
In appeals before this Board, a taxpayer "'may present persuasive evidence of overvaluation either by exposing flaws or errors in the assessors' method of valuation, or by introducing affirmative evidence of value which undermines the assessors' valuation.'" General Electric Co., 393 Mass. at 600 (quoting Donlon v. Assessors of Holliston, 389 Mass. 848, 855 (1983)).
With respect to "exposing flaws or errors in assessors' method of valuation," taxpayers do not conclusively establish a right to abatement merely by showing that their land, or a portion of it, is overvalued. "The tax on a parcel of land and the building thereon is one tax . . . although for statistical purposes they may be valued separately." Assessors of Brookline v. Prudential Insurance Co., 310 Mass. 300, 316-17 (1941). In abatement proceedings, "the question 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). See also Buckley v. Assessors of Duxbury, Mass. ATB Findings of Fact and Reports 1990-110, 119; Jernegan v. Assessors of Duxbury, Mass. ATB Findings of Fact and Reports 1990-39, 48-49; Everhart v. Assessors of Dalton, Mass. ATB Findings of Fact and Reports 1985-49, 54.
In the present appeals, the appellants and their real estate valuation expert attempted to show that the subject properties were overvalued for the fiscal years at issue by demonstrating that the assessed values associated with the land components were excessive thereby causing the overall assessed values to exceed the subject properties' fair cash values. The Board found and ruled, however, that the real estate valuation expert failed to confirm the assessed values of the improvements with the market, to use properly developed values, or to appropriately adjust his purportedly comparable-sale properties' improvements in comparison with the subject properties' improvements. Consequently, he did not prove that "the assessment[] for the parcel[s] of real estate, including both the land and the structures thereon, [were] excessive." Massachusetts General Hospital, 238 Mass. at 403. Because of these failings, the Board found and ruled that his analyses were flawed. Furthermore, to the extent that the appellants raised the specter of mistakes in the assessors' individual assessments of the subject properties, the Board found and ruled that they failed to adequately quantify them.
In addition, the appellants failed to demonstrate that Edgartown's assessments as a whole or those attributable to the subject properties were unsound or erroneous because of errors or omissions in the town's LA-3 reports or because the underlying data and methodology, which the assessors employed in the valuation process, were flawed and unreliable. Notwithstanding the existence of several omissions, additions, or misclassifications, the appellants concede that "[i]t is not possible . . . to prove the exact amount of overvaluation." The appellants failed to prove whether, or to what extent, these errors led to the overvaluation of the subject properties. Accordingly, the Board found and ruled that the appellants did not demonstrate that the assessed values attributed to the subject properties were unreliable or excessive as a result of errors or mistakes in the assessors' valuation methodology.
Real estate valuation experts, the Massachusetts courts, and this Board rely primarily upon three approaches to determine a property's fair cash value: income-capitalization, sales comparison, and depreciated reproduction or replacement cost. Correia v. New Bedford Redevelopment Authority, 375 Mass. 360, 362 (1978). "The Board is not required to adopt any particular method of valuation." Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co. v. Assessors of Boston, 397 Mass. 447, 449 (1986). The fair cash value of property may often best be determined by recent sales of comparable properties in the market. See Correia, 375 Mass. at 362; McCabe v. Chelsea, 265 Mass. 494, 496 (1929). Actual sales generally "furnish strong evidence of market value, provided they are arm's-length transactions and thus fairly represent what a buyer has been willing to pay for the property to a willing seller." Foxboro Associates v. Assessors of Foxborough, 385 Mass. 679, 682 (1982); New Boston Garden Corp. v. Assessors of Boston, 383 Mass. 456, 469 (1981); First National Stores, Inc. v. Assessors of Somerville, 358 Mass. 554, 560 (1971). Sales of comparable realty in the same geographic area and within a reasonable time of the assessment date contain credible data and information for determining the value of the property at issue. See McCabe, 265 Mass. at 496. "A major premise of the sale comparison approach is that an opinion of the market value of a property can be supported by studying the market's reaction to comparable and competitive properties." Appraisal Institute, The Appraisal of Real estate 297 (13th ed., 2008). When comparable sales are used, however, allowance must be made for various factors which would otherwise cause disparities in the comparable prices. See Pembroke Industrial Park Co., Inc. v. Assessors of Pembroke, Mass. ATB Findings of Fact and Reports 1998-1072, 1082. "Adjustments for differences are made to the price of each comparable property to make that property equivalent to the subject in market appeal on the effective date of the opinion of value." The Appraisal of real estate at 430.
In the instant appeals, the appellants' real estate valuation expert eschewed a traditional sales-comparison approach and instead elected to employ what can best be described as a blended or combined, comparable-sales, land-extraction, and cost (assessment) approach. Essentially, and as explained in the Board's findings above, the appellants' real estate valuation expert first identified four to six purportedly comparable-sale properties for the corresponding fiscal years at issue for each of the subject properties. He then backed-out the assessed values of the improvements from each of the sale prices, and then adjusted the extracted land values for five factors: time; location; site utility and size; view; and caliber of interest in a dock or pier. After completing these steps, he derived an indicated land value for each comparable, which he then rounded and weighted to garner an estimated land value for the subject property. As a final step, the appellants' real estate valuation witness added back the assessed values of the subject property's improvements to determine his estimated fair cash value for the subject property. The appellants' real estate valuation expert did not rely upon a separate, appropriately prepared, cost analysis for either the subject properties' or his purportedly comparable properties' improvements, and he did not attempt to confirm the improvements' assessed values with any relevant market data. The appellants' real estate valuation expert admitted that he simply relied on the assessed values as being reasonable estimates of the improvements' values as "placeholders."
As stated previously in the Findings above, a similar methodology is described in The Appraisal of Real Estate, in the section detailing alternative techniques for valuing "[v]acant parcels of land." Id. at 366 (emphasis added). It is an alternative technique for valuing vacant parcels of land when sales of comparable vacant land are so rare that their values cannot be estimated reliably by direct comparison or with sufficient comparable data. Id. The treatise cautions that "extraction methods should be used with extreme care and only when lack of market data prevents application of more direct methods and procedures." Id. at 368.
The Board found that, in the present appeals, the appellants' real estate valuation expert's methodology takes the land-extraction method even further than that described in the treatise; he used it, with only one exception, to value improved waterfront properties, not simply vacant parcels or large tracts of rural land with negligible value in or no improvements. Moreover, the Board found that the appellants' real estate valuation expert relied on this approach despite not convincingly demonstrating a dearth of market data or that a more traditional or conventional sales-comparison approach was incapable of valuing the subject properties for the fiscal years at issue. Furthermore, and as stated above, the appellants' real estate valuation expert also failed to use appropriately developed values for the improvements or to confirm the assessed values with market data.
The Board has previously rejected indicated values developed using a land-extraction (or land-allocation) methodology to value vacant lots because "[the real estate valuation expert] did not provide market evidence to demonstrate that the comparable properties' land and building assessment allocation was indicative of the property's fair market value." Salem Traders Way Realty, LLC, Mass. ATB Findings of Fact and Reports at 2009-64. In the instant appeals, the appellants' real estate valuation expert similarly calculated his extracted land values by subtracting the assessed values of his comparable-sale properties' improvements from their sale prices without verifying the assessment component with the market or using an appropriately developed cost analysis. He further compounded the problem, with respect to all of the subject properties save one, by adding the subject property's improvement assessment to his indicated land value to ascertain his estimate of the subject property's fair cash value.
The appellants can point to no previous appeal where the Board has adopted a similar blended methodology that relies primarily on a land-extraction technique to value improved, or for that matter even vacant, parcels. Other jurisdictions are similarly cautious in accepting a land-extraction approach. See, e.g. Sharps v. Benton County Assessor, Oregon Tax Court, Magistrate Division, TC-MD 070467D 18 (March 31, 2008)("'[t]he extraction method is less reliable than the direct comparison approach and should be used with caution,'" [citation omitted] and only "with a large sample of properties within the same neighborhood."). The purportedly comparable-sale properties utilized by the appellants' real estate valuation expert do not constitute a "large sample of properties within the same neighborhood." Id.
For all of the preceding reasons, the Board found and ruled that Mr. Hartel's methodology is flawed and unreliable.
In deciding these appeals, the Board was not required to believe the testimony of any particular witness or to adopt any particular method of valuation that a witness suggested. Rather, the Board could accept those portions of the evidence that the Board determined had more convincing weight. Foxboro Associates, 385 Mass. at 683; New Boston Garden Corp., 383 Mass. at 473; Board of Assessors of Lynnfield v. New England Oyster House, Inc., 362 Mass. 696, 701-702 (1972). In considering whether, and to what extent, a property is overvalued, the Board may take its view of the premises and its view of comparable properties into account. Westport v. Bristol County Commissioners, 246 Mass. 556, 563 (1923); Avco Manufacturing Corp. v. Assessors of Wilmington, Mass. ATB Findings of Fact and Reports 1990-142, 165-66; Arthur D. Little, Inc. v. Assessors of Cambridge, Mass. ATB Findings of Fact and Reports, 1982-363, 374. Given the unique character of Martha's Vineyard, Edgartown, and the subject and comparable properties, the Board found its view particularly helpful in determining the comparability of the purportedly comparable-sale properties.
The Board need not specify the exact manner in which it arrived at its decision. Jordan Marsh Co. v. Assessors of Malden, 359 Mass. 106, 110 (1971). The fair cash value of property cannot be proven with "mathematical certainty and must ultimately rest in the realm of opinion, estimate and judgment." Assessors of Quincy v. Boston Consol. Gas Co., 309 Mass. 60, 72 (1941). "The credibility of witnesses, the weight of evidence, and inferences to be drawn from the evidence are matters for the [B]oard." Cummington School of the Arts, Inc. v. Assessors of Cummington, 373 Mass. 597, 605 (1977).
In the present appeals, the Board found and ruled that the appellants failed to demonstrate that subject properties were overvalued. On this basis, the Board decided these appeals for the appellee.

THE APPELLATE TAX BOARD

By: ___________________________________
Thomas W. Hammond, Jr., Chairman

A true copy,

Attest: _____________________________
Clerk of the Board

John M. & Joan A. Wuerth are named as trustees on the fiscal year 2008 tax bill.
On August 15, 2011, Commissioner Egan was sworn as a temporary member of the Appellate Tax Board pursuant to G.L. c. 58A, § 1, her status as a member of the Board having terminated on that date with the appointment and qualification of her successor. See G.L. c. 30, § 8. This appointment was renewed for an additional year commencing August 15, 2012. Commissioner Egan's material participation in the deliberations of these appeals included, inter alia, drafting and distributing proposed Findings and giving a detailed report on the evidence, including her view, and her observations as to witness credibility. She also made oral presentations of her recommendations to the Board members.

The "tax assessed" column includes Community Preservation Act ("CPA") additions of $1,260.72 for fiscal year 2008, $1,360.19 for fiscal year 2009, $1,415.43 for fiscal year 2010, and $1,557.43 for fiscal year 2011.
The "tax assessed" column includes CPA additions of $875.48 for fiscal year 2008, $931.25 for fiscal year 2009, and $931.14 for fiscal year 2010.
The "tax assessed" column includes CPA additions of $1,266.07 for fiscal year 2008, $1,333.24 for fiscal year 2009, and $1,355.07 for fiscal year 2010.
The "tax assessed" column includes a CPA addition of $925.86.
The "tax assessed" column includes a CPA addition of $978.24.
The "tax assessed" column includes CPA additions of $731.87 for fiscal year 2008, $780.12 for fiscal year 2009, and $798.48 for fiscal year 2010.
On August 5, 2008, in accordance with G.L. c. 59, §§ 64 and 65, the parties agreed in writing to extend the time within which the assessors could act on the appellants' fiscal year 2008 applications for abatement for the subject properties to October 31, 2008.
A legend on each of the GIS maps warns that "map data is for assessment purposes" and the creator of the maps (Cartographic Associates, Inc.) is not "responsible for use for other purposes."
There are numerous overlapping comparable-sale properties among those chosen for the corresponding fiscal years at issue for each of the subject properties.
The sole exception is 52 Witchwood Lane, which, at all relevant times, was vacant, undeveloped land.
This testimony concerned the origination date of certain pictures depicting the view associated with one of the subject properties. Mr. Hartel's initial testimony, which was later proved to be correct, placed the date months beyond the relevant valuation and assessment date, while his later tainted testimony placed the date well before.
The Board noted that some of the median sale prices and number of sales that Mr. Hartel listed in the table that he included in his summary appraisal reports for each of the subject properties differed to some extent. For example, in his summary appraisal report of 48 Witchwood Lane for fiscal year 2011, he listed the number of sales for 2009 at 69, not 38; for 2008 at 63, not 61; and for 2007 at 83, not 82.
The appellant relinquished its right to use this pier as part of an apparent exchange for approval from the Witchwood Subdivision trustees of the building plans for the aforementioned 13,000-plus-square-foot residence.
The assessors place the subject parcel's area at 1.14 acres while the appellant's expert land surveyor, Douglas Hoehn, places it at 1.11 acres, a difference of 0.03 acres or about 1,300 square feet. All of Mr. Hoehn's measurements are estimated from his readings of maps and their scales; the measurements are not the result of actual field work performed by him or under his auspices.
According to Mr. Hoehn, in 1989 the subject parcel's water-frontage was 107 feet but, due to certain erosive forces, is now only 96 feet.

All of Mr. Hoehn's measurements are estimated from his readings of maps and their scales; the measurements are not the result of actual field work performed by him or under his auspices.
The executor of the estate of Mr. Cronkite sold the Cronkite property for $11.3 million on January 31, 2011. The Presiding Commissioner ruled that this sale was inadmissible because the sale date was two years after the latest valuation and assessment date at issue.
The owners of this parcel are related to the owners of the subject property.
Mr. Hartel applied this adjustment to the sale price of the entire property and not simply the extracted land value.
See the preceding footnote, supra.
The sole exception is 52 Witchwood Lane, which, at all relevant times, was vacant, undeveloped land.

ATB 2013-1152

Wuerth Realty Trust, et al. v. Board of Assessors of the Town of Edgartown (November 27, 2013)

Texte intégral

Poursuivez vos recherches dans ChatGPT ou Claude