Quote:
Originally Posted by LIforrelaxin
What was my argument? It was going to be that my land value was to high.... When I compared structures I found that my camp was comparable priced to others. And while the land was comparably priced as well, do to the shape of the lot, developing the property was not as easy, and thus my argument would have been that the lot shape and size restricted structure size. Thus my lot was not as valuable as the lots of my neighbors which where the same size.
Long story short after talking to a few people, what I found is that in some area's the size of a structure you can build doesn't mater, because you can always build up.
The point I am trying to make here, is you may have reasoning that make sense to you as to why your property is over valued. But other people may and will have counter arguments to that, in the end is it really going to be worth the hassle.
|
I had pretty much that reason for the appeal I went through in Gilford years ago and was successful in having the land value lowered.
My lot is 50 feet wide at the street but 100 feet wide at the water. Gilford has a 25 foot setback requirement for building. My point was that a substantial portion of my lot was not buildable because the available area was a triangle that started 50 feet from the street. I pointed out other rectangle shaped lots of similar size that had much more buildable area but were valued the same as mine because of Sq. footage. They agreed and lowered the assessed value.