Laserfiche WebLink
parcel instead of contacting him, and discussed the error in his assessment on his lot that was <br /> corrected by the Property Appraiser after the hearing. He wanted to know if the Property <br /> Appraiser could go back three years and apply the same correction, and in conclusion he <br /> another hearing, or he would be back next year. <br /> Property Appraiser David Nolte invited Mr. Duncan to his office to review the change in <br /> the assessment together, and told him he may be happy with his assessment next year and may <br /> not need to file a VAB petition. <br /> The VAB Attorney and the Chairman redirected the Petitioner to address any complaints <br /> or error that he could identify with the Value Adjustment Board, and there were none. <br /> ON MOTION by Vice Chairman Davis, SECONDED by <br /> Citizen Member Spytek, by a 4-0 vote (School Board <br /> Member Johnson absent), the Board denied the <br /> Petitioner's request for a second hearing. <br /> Mr. Duncan exited the meeting at 9:30 a.m. <br /> L <br /> 6. APPROVE AND ADOPT THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATES' <br /> RECOMMENDATIONS AS THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD'S <br /> DECISION AND AUTHORIZE DISTRIBUTION OF FORM DR485V, <br /> PURSUANT TO SECTION 194.032, F.S. <br /> 6.A. PETITION RECAP BY VAB BOARD CLERK <br /> Clerk's note: A mathematical error (9 instead of 8 Granted) in the petition recap was <br /> noted by Vice Chairman Davis during the meeting and the correct totals are indicated below. <br /> VAB Board Clerk Maria Suesz read and reviewed Item 6.A. the Petition Recap, <br /> summarizing the results of 50 hearings: 9 Granted, 6 Granted in Part for a total of 15 Granted <br /> relief overall, and 35 Denied. <br /> 2011 VAB FINAL MEETING 3 <br /> January 25,2012 <br />