TOWN OF NEWTOWN
OFFICE OF THE ASSESSOR
BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS
MINUTES
REVALUATION MEETING
MARCH 6, 2008 @ 9:00 AM
45 MAIN STREET
NEWTOWN, CT 06470
PRESENT: CHARLES V. FRAMULARO JR., MARIANNE BROWN, SHARON IVAN, JOHN GODIN, AND DEREK MCCLEERY
ALSO PRESENT: THOMAS DENOTO, PENNY TALARINO
1. E&A/I&G Sandhill Plaza LTD Partnership
Date: 3/5/08
Property Location/Description being appealed: 228 South Main Street, Newtown,
CT, 06470
Reason for Appeal: Believes property assessment is too high considering the current
market.
Board Discussion/Resolution: No change. Subject appeal has no sufficient comps
compared to the 8 ½ % capital. Property is still highly financial in current market
despite marked depreciation in last 6-9 months. Subject bought property in 2005 for
$25 million prior to upgrades.
2. James Morris & Mark Wheeler
Date: 3/5/08
Property Location/Description being appealed: 41 Glen Road, Sandy Hook, CT
3. John Hastedt, (RE), 11 Sand Hill Road
· Mr. Hastedt has a 2 car garage with a finished room above assessed at $61,700. He built the garage himself and it cost approximately $45,000 to build. Mr. Hastedt stated he only uses the room as work space. The room has no plumbing, kitchen, or closet space. On the field card the garage is listed as a one family ranch which he states is incorrect due to the fact that it is an outbuilding. Also, he disagrees with the room configurations. Mr. Hastedt said the square footage of the room is roughly 507 square feet not 608 which is listed on the field card. Garage is also listed at 26 x 26 with .75 story height. He agrees with the dimensions, but he believes the story
height is listed incorrectly and it should be lower. Mr. Hastedt also brought in two comparables. On High Rock Road there is a 2 car garage with finished quarters above, and a 1 car garage attached to it assessed at $38,210. Also, on Queen Street there was also a 2 car garage with finished quarters above assessed at $14,500. Mr. Hastedt believes the assessment is greater than what the garage is worth.
· Approved: The story height for the garage was changed from .75 to .65. The functional depreciation was changed from 25% to 35% due to the fact that the garage does not have all the amenities to designate it as living space. Square footage was also changed to 507 square feet from 608 square feet. Regarding the garage being listed as a one family ranch there is nothing the Assessor’s Office can do to change that because they do not have a listing on the field cards for a garage with finished room above. By having the garage listed as a one family ranch does not add or remove value. From all other changes made assessment of the garage was reduced to $53,480.
This also changes assessment of property from $302,200 to $296,440.
4. John Estores, (RE)
· Appointment Canceled
5. Paul Jaros, (RE), 2 Deer Trail
· Mr. Jaros believes his property assessment is too high due to his addition being
assessed at 100% complete for the 2006 Grand List. The property is assessed at
$206,350. The addition is not completed, and Mr. Jaros is unable to get a
Certificate of Occupancy (C.O.) from the building department. The Building
Department states that the interior of the addition still needs a lot of work.
· Approved: Addition is going to stay at 100% complete for the 2006 Grand
List, but the functional depreciation was changed from 4% to 9%. This reduced
the assessment from $206,350 to $195,970.
6. Joseph Paccia, (RE), 47 Head of Meadow Road
· Mr. Paccia disagrees with his property assessment of $239,460 due to
discrepancies he has with the land. He has 2.7 acres, but he stated that most of
it is wetlands. Mr. Paccia also said that part of the property is also sloped.
Therefore, the land is unusable and if he ever wanted to expand on the house he
would be unable to do so. Mr. Paccia believes the property should be assessed
at $190,000.
· Denied: Board of Assessment Appeals deliberated and found the property
assessment to be fair and reasonable after reviewing the property and one’s
similar to it.
7. Derek and Janice Bateson, (RE), 11 Merlins Lane
· Mr. and Mrs. Bateson disagree with their property assessment of $360,000 at
75% complete. The house is still under construction. The Board of Education
applies an education levy to all new construction past 120 days. Since the
Batesons house has been under construction for more than 120 days they have
to pay an additional fee of $136 a month for both of their children to attend
Newtown schools. The Batesons feel since they have to pay an additional fee to
the Board of Education that their property assessment should be reduced. Their
reasoning for this is that the quality of our school systems influences how
houses are assessed in Newtown. The Batesons believe their property
assessment should be $132,131.
· Denied: The Board of Assessment Appeals decided to keep the property
assessment of $360,000 at 75% complete. They stated that the Batesons need to
appeal to the Board of Education since their issue is with them regarding the
education levy.
8. David Rizzardi, (PP), David Rizzardi Co. Inc.
· Mr. Rizzardi disagrees with his personal property assessment of $211,780. The
Assessor found undeclared machinery on various properties owned by Mr.
Rizzardi and added them to his personal property declaration. Mr. Rizzardi
only disagrees with the machinery assessment of $210,000. He stated that not
all of the machinery is his, and that all the rest of his machinery he parks at
Kovac’s in Brookfield. The only time his machines are in Newtown is when he
is working on a job. He stated that he should be dealing with Brookfield not
Newtown, and therefore disagrees with his personal property assessment.
· Denied: The Board of Assessment Appeals decided that Mr. Rizzardi has to
prove to Newtown where his machinery is located in order to adjust his
personal property. They stated the burden of proof is on the taxpayer.
9. Peter Campbell, (PP)
· No Show
10. Michael Stern, (PP)
· Appointment Canceled
11. Satyam Corporation, (PP), Mobile on Church Hill Road
· Satyam Corp. appealed their personal property audit. The audit company
G & K Associates came up with a personal property assessment of $313,324.
Satyam disagrees with the assessment due to the fact that the equipment is not
distributed based on ownership. Satyam leases equipment from GE, Net Bank,
Montana, Hood, and J. Polep. In addition, the tanks are not priced appropriately
according to the contract from the company that installed them. Attorney Hall
came up with an assessment of $105,798 after distributing assets based on
ownership.
· Undecided: Pending calculation until Attorney Hall and G & K Associates
resolve assessment discrepancies.
| 
