HomeMy WebLinkAbout930990.tiff BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS
STATE OF COLORADO
Docket Number 23599
ORDER
ESTATE OF THOMAS LEE PIERCE,
Petitioner,
vs .
WELD COUNTY BOARD OF EQUALIZATION,
Respondent .
THIS MATTER was heard by the Board of Assessment Appeals on
March 24, 1993 , Kenneth Bennett and Ramon G. Le Duke presiding.
Petitioner was represented by James T. Haselwood, agent.
Respondent was represented by Thomas O. David, Esq.
FINDINGS OF FACT:
1 . Subject property is described as follows :
LOCATED AT 350 BARON COURT - ERIE - WELD
COUNTY SCHEDULE NUMBER 146731000028
2 . Petitioner is protesting the 1992 actual value of the
subject property, a 5 . 853 acre parcel of vacant land.
3 . Petitioner contends that the subject property was
classified agricultural through tax year 1991 and then in 1992 the
property was reclassified to vacant land. Petitioner claims that
the use of the land did not change in 1992 and therefore the
subject property' s classification should have remained
agricultural .
4 . Petitioner stated that the subject is in a designated
clear zone easement for the Tri-County Airport in Erie, Colorado.
The subject site cannot be built on so its only use is
agricultural .
5 . It is Petitioner' s opinion that if agricultural
classification is refused the land should be tax exempt since it is
'�y6 being used as an airport clear zone and can not be improved.
KY 1 93099
n� L 1�"�
6 . Respondent' s witness presented the following indicator of
value:
Market : $29, 250 . 00
7 . Respondent' s witness presented three comparable sales
ranging in sales price from $4, 990 . 00 to $5,400 . 00 per acre and in
size from 6 .47 to 9 .13 acres to derive a market approach value for
the subject property of $29, 250 .00 or $5, 000 per acre.
8 . Respondent admitted that two of the sales are four to
five miles from the subject and are buildable home sites . The other
sale is adjacent to the subject and is also in the airport clear
zone. The witness agreed during questioning that this third sale
could have been purchased due to the need of additional clear zone,
thereby making it a forced purchase.
9 . Respondent also agreed that the subject sit cannot be
built on due to the clear zone restrictions .
10 . Respondent contends that the subject' s classification was
changed since no evidence of agricultural use was seen during an
inspection of the subject site and no agricultural declaration
was furnished by the owner.
11 . Respondent assigned an actual value of $29, 250 . 00 to the
subject property for tax year 1992 .
CONCLUSIONS:
1 . Petitioner presented sufficient probative evidence and
testimony to prove that the subject property was incorrectly valued
for tax year 1992 .
2 . The Board carefully reviewed all documentation 'and
testimony presented at the hearing from both parties. The Board
determined that, since no agricultural use was noted during an
inspection and no documentation was submitted to the assessor that
proved a two prior year agricultural use, the assessor was correct
in changing the subject' s classification.
3 . The Board also determined that it would not be proper to
exempt the subject property since it does have some allowable uses,
such as an airport clear zone, a farm or ranch and possibly a
landscaping nursery business .
4 . The Board does feel, however, that the subject property' s
1992 assigned actual value should be reduced due to it' s limited
allowable usage. Two of the comparable sales used by the assessor
were fully developable sites (not in an airport clear zone) and the
other sale appears to be a forced purchase.
2
5 . Based on it' s present use as an airport clear zone, only,
the Board concludes that the subject property should be valued
similar to excess land at a figure of $1, 000 . 00 per acre.
6 . The Board concluded that the 1992 actual value of the
subject property should be reduced to $5, 853 . 00 .
ORDER:
Respondent is ordered to reduce the 1992 actual value of the
subject property to $5, 853 . 00 .
The Weld County Assessor is directed to change his records
accordingly.
APPEAL:
Petitioner may petition the Court of Appeals for judicial
review within 45 days from the date of this decision.
Also, if Respondent alleges procedural errors or errors of law
by this Board, Respondent may petition the Court of Appeals for
judicial review within X30 days from the date of this decision.
.
DATED this // —day of May, 1993 .
BOARD OF ASS SMENT APPEALS
„1/4tOP
t"•
°O w Kenne nnett
a et
9 4Cfr
�.
gs*ESSME � anion G. Le Duke
This decision was put on the record
W141993
4 1993
I hereby certify that this is a true
and correct copy of the decision of
Board of Asse n Appeal .
ames R. Sharp 3599 .MY3
3
Hello