04/11/2024 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Findings of Fact for Petition 2023-029: The Appraiser Special Magistrate (SM) conducted a hearing that occurred on Nov 15, 2023 for the correctness of 2023 Just/Market Value of 705 Hibiscus Ln (32-40-332-00013-0001-00001.0) in Vero Beach, The Special Magist clerk (Terri) and representatives from the Indian River County Property Appraisers Office (PAO) were physically present in the hearing room. On a conference call was Stephen Boyle the representative for Giovanni Mazzeo the petitioner (PET). Both parties presented evidence in support of their opinions for the subject value. The PAO evidence consisted of a cover page, list of evidence, information request letter, evidence exchange 12D-9 document, methodology and consideration page, 193.011 Factors to consider document, case law pages, subject property card, subject photo, comparable grid, location map df subject/comparables ,property cards with photos of comparables, land sales grid, land sale map and a summary page. A 15% cos (cost of sale) adjustment was conside The PET evidence consisted of an appraisal on a Fannie Mae 1004/Freddie Mac 70 form and MLS for three 2023 sales. I Upon examination of the evidence submitted, the PET provided an appraisal report with three sales and the PAO grid had four sales with no sales in common. PET sale 1 has a smaller parcel which was not adjusted as it was not on A 1 A per PET. The PAO commented on this sale having $76,000 worth of permits pulled right after closing. The relisting of this property after renovation is not ` applicable as it would then require significant adjustments for condition as well as the statement from the PAO that t e owner wanted a quick sale. Sale 2 is on AIA, albeit the west side of the street and is mislabeled for distance from the subject in the appraisal report. It is much larger in size and did not have a pool. Sale 3 is mislabeled for distance from the subject and is also north of the subject approx. a mile (0.2 miles S in appraisal). This property has a smaller parcel which was not adjusted as it was not on AIA per PET. This sale did not have a pool. This comparable contracted in 12/21 and sold in 01/22 with no time adjustment as -made in the prior hearing which the PET commented that this sale was utilized in the Mr. White hearing. The PET provided MLS for three additional 2023 sales which were all along AIA; however, on the west side of AIA,, These were all after the effective date of valuation. The PAO had 4 sales in the grid with a price per sf analysis. Sale 1 is similar in size, east of AIA (not directly on Alt!) with a pool. The PET verbally indicated this had some superior updates (millwork, impact windows). Sale 2 is next door to the subject, much larger in size and appears to be in superior condition as indicated by the highJr sale price. I Sale 3 is across the street from the subject, sides AIA like the subject with a pool; However, much larger in size. The PET verbally commented that it is in superior condition to the subject and the PAO rebutted that this property is be;; renovated after the sale. Sale 4 is west ofAIA, smaller in size and does not have a pool. The PAO presented a land analysis grid with 4 sales that were purchased and to be torn down/razed for new construction. Land sale 3 is a higher value from its location on Lady Bug Ln which the SM deemed is a superior parol and did not consider in the valuation. Sale 1 is most similar in size; however, with smaller front footage and longer I depth. This property had a land value of $976,650 after the 15% cos. This sale provides support for the subject value with the PET comments of average condition as the property on this site was razed. The PET commented that this lot 1 could be split which warranted a higher value. This may be. possible; however, the zoning still indicated single family, and at time of sale was 125 x 140 in dimensions. The intent of the buyer was not known and presented as factual j evidence. Sale 2 lends support with its narrower front footage. Sale 4 has smaller front footage and location on the west side ofAlA. The PET commented on condition of comparables which no documented evidence was provided. The PAO stated they, did not have access to MLS for condition. Both sides commented on properties being renovated/updated after the 202 sales. Neither party presented evidence for condition of the comparables. The PAO provided four sales from the market area. The four sales, after had a range from $485 to $696 per sf. The foul sales return a value of $952,237 after the 15% cos is applied based on the average price per sf. PAO Sales 2 & 3 are i much larger than the subject. PAO sale 3 being across the street when adjusted for size using PET $100 per sf amount and the 15% cos still leaves around $100,000 for some superior condition factors. The PET 3 sales return a value of $533,179 after the 15% cos is applied based on the average price per sf. 2023-029 -27- Page 2 of 3