One Twenty Danbury Rd. v. New Milford Bd., No. Cv 95 0068122 (Nov. 3, 1997)

1997 Conn. Super. Ct. 12067
CourtConnecticut Superior Court
DecidedNovember 3, 1997
DocketNo. CV 95 0068122
StatusUnpublished

This text of 1997 Conn. Super. Ct. 12067 (One Twenty Danbury Rd. v. New Milford Bd., No. Cv 95 0068122 (Nov. 3, 1997)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut Superior Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
One Twenty Danbury Rd. v. New Milford Bd., No. Cv 95 0068122 (Nov. 3, 1997), 1997 Conn. Super. Ct. 12067 (Colo. Ct. App. 1997).

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]MEMORANDUM OF DECISION The plaintiff, One Twenty Danbury Road, L.L.C., has appealed the assessment of its commercial property located at 74 Danbury Road, New Milford, in the amount of $421,470.00 based upon a total value of $620,000.00 on the tax list of October 1, 1992. The property was purchased in 1995 for a price of $130,000.00.

As stated in Xerox Corp. v. Board of Tax Review,240 Conn. 192 (1997) at 204, "We recently restated the basic principles of the law governing a tax appeal pursuant to § 12-117a. We observed that, in such an appeal, `the trial court tries the matter de novo and the ultimate question is the ascertainment of the true and actual value of the [taxpayer's] property. . . . At the de novo proceeding, the taxpayer bears the burden of establishing that the assessor has overassessed its property. . . . The trier of fact must arrive at his own conclusions as to the value of [the taxpayer's property] by weighing the opinion of the appraisers, the claims of the parties in light of all the circumstances in evidence bearing on value, and his own general knowledge of the elements going to establish value.". . . .

The plaintiff called as an expert witness Ray O'Neil, Jr. who testified that "given the zoning and neighboring land uses, the level of traffic and the condition of the site, commercial development of the property is considered the highest and best use." He concluded that in his opinion the fee simple value of the property as of October 1, 1982 was $231,500.00.

Mr. O'Neil examined four properties in reaching his estimate of value as follows:

Sale #1 Park Lane, 3.8 ac., B-1 and R-40, no flood hazard, sewer water Sale #2 Danbury Rd., 0.69 ac., B-1, no flood hazard, water Sale #3 Kent Road, 6.0 ac., B-1 zone, 2/3 in flood hazard, water Sale #4 Danbury Rd, 2.0 ac., I zone, no flood hazard CT Page 12069

____________________________________________________________________________ | SUBJECT | SALE #1 | SALE #2 | SALE #3 | SALE #4 _______________|_________|___________|_____________|___________|____________ LOCATION | | Route 202 | 177 Danbury | Kent Rd. | 527 Danbury _______________|_________|___________|_____________|___________|____________ SIZE | 4.63 | 3.80 | 0.69 | 6.07 | 2.00 _______________|_________|___________|_____________|___________|____________ ZONE | B-1 | B-1, R | B-1 | B-1 | I _______________|_________|___________|_____________|___________|____________ PRICE | | $500,000 | $350,000 | $280,000 | $165,000 _______________|_________|___________|_____________|___________|____________ SALES | | $131,579 | $507,246 | $46,129 | $82,500 PRICE/ACRE | | | | | _______________|_________|___________|_____________|___________|____________ | | | | | _______________|_________|___________|_____________|___________|____________ MARKET ADJUSTMENTS ____________________________________________________________________________ PROPERTY | | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% RIGHTS | | | | | _______________|_________|___________|_____________|___________|____________ SALES | | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% CONDITIONS | | | | | _______________|_________|___________|_____________|___________|____________ FINANCING | | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% _______________|_________|___________|_____________|___________|____________ TIME/MARKET | | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% _______________|_________|___________|_____________|___________|____________ NET | | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% ADJUSTMENT | | | | | _______________|_________|___________|_____________|___________|____________ MARKET PRICE | | $131,579 | $507,246 | $46,129 | $82,500 _______________|_________|___________|_____________|___________|____________ | | | | | _______________|_________|___________|_____________|___________|____________ PROPERTY ADJUSTMENTS TO SUBJECT ____________________________________________________________________________ SIZE | | 0% | -80% | 0% | 0% _______________|_________|___________|_____________|___________|____________ | | $131,579 | $101,449 | $46,129 | $82,500 _______________|_________|___________|_____________|___________|____________ TERRAIN | | -50% | -50% | -10% | -50% _______________|_________|___________|_____________|___________|____________ | | $65,789 | $50,725 | $41,516 | $41,250 _______________|_________|___________|_____________|___________|____________ LOCATION | | 10% | 0% | 10% | 0% _______________|_________|___________|_____________|___________|____________ | | $72,368 | $50,725 | $45,667 | $41,250 CT Page 12070 _______________|_________|___________|_____________|___________|____________ ZONE | | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% _______________|_________|___________|_____________|___________|____________ SHAPE | | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% _______________|_________|___________|_____________|___________|____________ UTILITIES | | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% _______________|_________|___________|_____________|___________|____________ | | | | | _______________|_________|___________|_____________|___________|____________ ADJUSTED | | $72,368 | $50,725 | $45,667 | $41,250 PRICE PER | | | | | ACRE | | | | | _______________|_________|___________|_____________|___________|____________ | | | | | _______________|_________|___________|_____________|___________|____________ ADJUSTED | | $335,066 | $234,855 | $211,439 | $190,988 SALE PRICE | | | | | _______________|_________|___________|_____________|___________|____________ AVERAGE | $52,503 | | | | _______________|_________|___________|_____________|___________|____________ VALUE AT | $243,087| | | | AVERAGE | | | | | _______________|_________|___________|_____________|___________|____________

Sale #2 is the sale geographically closest to the subject and the sale that is most clearly a market transaction, with no bank a participant in the sale. The adjusted indication of this sales is given greatest consideration and the most likely sales price of the subject as of the date of revaluation is estimated on the basis of $50,000 per acre and calculated to have been $231,500 for the 4.6 acre parcel. By sales comparison, then, it is the appraiser's conclusion that market value of the subject as of October 1, 1992 was:

TWO HUNDRED THIRTY ONE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS ($231,500)

The appraiser reached the conclusion as to value as follows:

15. RECONCILIATION AND FINAL CONCLUSION

The subject property is a parcel of vacant, commercially zoned land. It is located at 120 Danbury Road in the Town of New Milford.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

National Folding Box Co. v. City of New Haven
153 A.2d 420 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1959)
Hartford Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Tucker
491 A.2d 1084 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1985)
Mather v. Griffin Hospital
540 A.2d 666 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1988)
Xerox Corp. v. Board of Tax Review
690 A.2d 389 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1997)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1997 Conn. Super. Ct. 12067, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/one-twenty-danbury-rd-v-new-milford-bd-no-cv-95-0068122-nov-3-1997-connsuperct-1997.