Opinion
HHBCV146026501S
08-18-2017
Jean Douville Kaiser v. City of Norwalk et al
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
Sheila A. Huddleston, Judge.
The plaintiff, Jean Douville Kaiser, appeals from the decision of the Board of Assessment Appeals (board) of the city of Norwalk (city), which found the fair market value of her property at 6 Shorehaven Road, Norwalk, Connecticut, to be $4,397,530 as of the date of a revaluation effective for the grand list of October 1, 2013. The appeal was tried to the court on November 3 and 4, 2016. After obtaining transcripts, the parties submitted post-trial briefs on April 10, 2017. The plaintiff submitted a reply brief on April 24, 2017. Based on all of the evidence presented and consideration of all the arguments of counsel, the court finds that the plaintiff is aggrieved by the assessment, which overstates the fair market value of the subject property. For the reasons discussed below, the court further finds the fair market value of the property to be $4,000,000, as of the grand list of October 1, 2013, and succeeding grand lists to the next revaluation or alteration in the property.
I
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY
The subject property is a one-acre waterfront property with excellent views of Long Island Sound. As of October 1, 2013, it was improved by a singlefamily house, built in 1999, subject to a drainage easement across the front of the real estate. The house consists of thirteen rooms, including four bedrooms, eight full bathrooms, a kitchen, dining room, living room, family room, den, office, bonus room, study, and media room, with fireplaces in the living room, family room, and master bedroom. There is a three-car garage. Porches in the rear of the house look out onto an attractively landscaped lawn and an unobstructed view of Long Island Sound with a distant view of Sprite Island. There is a seawall of approximately 150 linear feet along Long Island Sound. A dock allows access for small boats depending on the tides. Commercial clamming and oyster beds right off the property prevent it from being dredged. There is a rocky beach.
The plaintiff bought the house on February 3, 2012, for $3,537,000. It had been on the market for nearly two years before the plaintiff purchased it. Before the purchase, a home inspector found the heating system in operation. When the plaintiff and her husband, Jay Kaiser, visited the house the day after the closing, the heat had been turned off because the house had been vacant. When they turned on the heat, the house filled with smoke. They soon discovered that the heating system needed to be replaced. While the heating system was being replaced, the contractor discovered that the pipes in the house were brittle and were cracking. All the plumbing had to be replaced, which required removing sheetrock, then replacing, taping, and painting it. The oil heating system was replaced with a propane gas system. The air conditioning system was replaced at the same time and a full-house generator was installed on the property.
As the work progressed, other structural issues were discovered, including a load-bearing column that was not properly secured and a rotting subfloor in a bathroom. Mold was found inside the walls. The remediation, repairs, and renovations undertaken at the same time cost over eight hundred thousand dollars that the plaintiff had not expected to spend on a twelve-year-old house.
The house had been designed by an architect, Peter Cadoux, and the plaintiff engaged him to design the structural repairs. In the course of the repairs, the Kaisers also undertook certain renovations. The kitchen was remodeled and furnished with new appliances. The master bathroom was converted into two separate bathrooms. This was accomplished without adding square feet by removing a tub, adding a wall, a second shower, and a second toilet. A vaulted ceiling in the master bedroom was lowered so that a media room could be added in the third floor of the house, which already contained an office and a bathroom as well as unheated storage space. A small window in the third floor media room was replaced with a large dormer window with an excellent view of Long Island Sound. The renovation of the third floor space added only 140 square feet of gross living area, but the addition of the large dormer with the view of the Sound certainly added value. An open porch extending from an office on the second floor was enclosed and air-conditioned, adding another 120 square feet.
The repairs and renovations were completed just weeks before Superstorm Sandy struck the east coast in late October 2012. The crawl space under the house sustained minor damage, as did the exterior of the house, but the seawall and landscaping were significantly damaged. The property adjacent to the plaintiff's property also sustained damage to its seawall in the storm. This adjacent property is owned by the state of Connecticut and used as a group home for individuals with developmental disabilities. The state did not repair the damage to its seawall for two years. To avoid damage to her property in the event of another storm, the plaintiff rebuilt her seawall and also built a seawall between her property and the state-owned property next door. In addition, the plaintiff constructed a privacy fence on top of the seawall between the subject property and the state-owned group home next door. Altogether, the storm-related repairs and expenses cost the plaintiff approximately half a million dollars. The state would not allow the plaintiff to build the seawall between the two properties right on the property line, but instead required that it be set back onto the plaintiff's property, causing her to lose approximately a five-foot strip of her property, including five linear feet of shoreline. All the repairs to the properties, including the post-storm repairs, were completed before the city conducted its revaluation in 2013.
The 2013 revaluation was a computer-assisted mass appraisal conducted by Vision Government Solutions, a certified revaluation company, supervised by the city assessor's staff. The city used a " market adjusted cost approach." Through the revaluation, the city determined that the fair market value of the subject property was $4,572,350. The city calculated the gross living area of the property to be in excess of 8, 000 square feet. The plaintiff appealed to the board. Based on a slight reduction in the square footage (to 8, 057 square feet) and the presence of the easement in the front, the board reduced the fair market value to $4,397,530.
At trial, several different estimations of the square footage of the gross living area were presented. The architect's drawings show the gross living area to be 6, 648 square feet. The plaintiff's appraiser, Michael Gold, measured the gross living area and calculated it to be 6, 942 square feet. The city's appraiser, Michael Fazio, calculated the gross living area to be 6, 916 square feet. All of these calculations were more than a thousand square feet less than the city's determination of 8, 057 feet, which was not based on actual measurements. The court finds the measurements of the plaintiff's appraiser to be the most credible. The court therefore finds the gross living area of the house to be 6, 942 square feet.
II
APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS
Before addressing the merits of the parties' claims, the court sets out the well settled legal principles that govern an appeal under General Statutes § 12-117a. " Section 12-117a . . . provide[s] a method by which an owner of property may directly call in question the valuation placed by assessors upon his property . . . In a § 12-117a appeal, the trial court performs a two-step function. The burden, in the first instance, is upon the plaintiff to show that he has, in fact, been aggrieved by the action of the board in that his property has been overassessed . . . In this regard, [m]ere overvaluation is sufficient to justify redress under [§ 12-117a], and the court is not limited to a review of whether an assessment has been unreasonable or discriminatory or has resulted in substantial overvaluation . . . Whether a property has been overvalued for tax assessment purposes is a question of fact for the trier . . . The trier arrives at his own conclusions as to the value of land by weighing the opinions 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 including his own view of the property." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Redding Life Care, LLC v. Redding, 308 Conn. 87, 99-100, 61 A.3d 461 (2013). It is well established that in a trial to the court, " the trial judge is the sole arbiter of the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given specific testimony . . . The credibility and the weight of expert testimony is judged by the same standard, and the trial court is privileged to adopt whatever testimony [it] reasonably believes to be credible." (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Torres v. Waterbury, 249 Conn. 110, 123, 733 A.2d 817 (1999).
There are three generally recognized approaches to the valuation of real estate: the market sales approach, the cost approach, and the income capitalization approach. See, e.g., United Techs. Corp. v. Town of E. Windsor, 262 Conn. 11, 18-20, 807 A.2d 955 (2002) (describing three approaches); Abington, LLC v. Avon, 101 Conn.App. 709, 711 n.4, 922 A.2d 1148 (2007). In this case, both the plaintiff's appraiser and the city's appraiser primarily relied on the market sales approach and used a cost approach as a check on the values derived from the sales approach. Because the property is owner-occupied, neither appraiser used the income capitalization approach.
" The market sales approach is also known as the 'sales comparison approach' or the 'market data approach.'" United Technologies Corp. v. East Windsor, supra, 262 Conn. 17 n.10. " Under the market sales approach, the subject property's appraised value is derived from a comparison to recently sold similar properties in the vicinity, with appropriate value adjustments based on the elements of comparison." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id.
Under the cost approach to valuation, the appraiser estimates the current cost of replacing or reproducing the existing structures, including an entrepreneurial profit, with adjustments for depreciation, and adds the value of the land. See id., 17 n.8; see also Appraisal Institute, The Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal (6th Ed. 2015), p. 54.
The goal of all the appraisal approaches is to develop an indication of the fair market value of the subject property. " Fair market value" has been defined as " the price that a willing buyer would pay a willing seller based on the highest and best possible use of the land assuming, of course, that a market exists for such optimum use." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) United Technologies Corp. v. East Windsor, supra, 262 Conn. 25. A property's highest and best use is often defined as " the use that will most likely produce the highest market value, greatest financial return, or the most profit from the use of a particular piece of real estate." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Metropolitan District v. Burlington, 241 Conn. 382, 390, 696 A.2d 969 (1997). " A property's highest and best use is commonly accepted by real estate appraisers as the starting point for the analysis of its true and actual value." United Technologies Corp. v. East Windsor, supra, 262 Conn. 25. In this case, the parties agreed that the current use as a single-family residence is the highest and best use.
III
THE PLAINTIFF'S CLAIMS
The plaintiff's appraiser, Michael Gold, compared the subject property to three other Norwalk properties. Gold acknowledged that there were few sales of comparable high-value properties in the relevant time period. In choosing comparables, he focused primarily on proximity, choosing two sales in the Shorehaven neighborhood of East Norwalk. His third comparable was in the Rowayton neighborhood of Norwalk, an area recognized by both the plaintiff's and the city's appraiser to be a significantly higher value neighborhood than the Shorehaven area. Gold testified that he was unable to find any comparable sales in East Norwalk in excess of $4,000,000 proximate to the October 1, 2013 valuation date. He also performed a cost analysis but gave it little weight in his final opinion of value. Based primarily on his comparable sales analysis, Gold concluded that the fair market value of the property as of October 1, 2013, was $3,750,000.
Gold's first comparable, 1 Canfield Crossing, sold on January 11, 2013, for $3,195,442. It is located .13 miles northwest of the subject property but is not directly on Long Island Sound. It was built in 2012 as part of a planned unit development and consists of .4 acres, improved by a single-family dwelling of 6, 438 square feet. It overlooks a tidal creek and a golf course. Gold made positive adjustments for the subject property's direct frontage on Long Island Sound, its additional gross living area, its additional fireplace and bathrooms, its dock, attic storage, and generator. He made negative adjustments for the subject property's greater age and lack of a patio and pool. His net adjusted sales price for this comparable was $3,772,592.
Gold's second comparable, 32 Shorehaven Road, sold for $3,000,000 on November 22, 2013, seven weeks after the revaluation date. It had been on the market for 170 days. It is located on Canfield Island, .35 miles northeast of the subject property, with frontage on Long Island Sound and a tidal creek. It was built in 1919 but remodeled in 1998. It consists of .64 acres of land improved by a 4, 069-square-foot dwelling with nine rooms, including four bedrooms, 4 full bathrooms, and 2 half bathrooms. Gold made positive adjustments for the greater size of the subject property and the subject dwelling, for the higher quality of construction and better condition of the subject property. He made a negative adjustment for what he believed to be the subject property's inferior view, which included a view of the adjacent property owned by the state and operated as a group home. Gold's net adjusted sales price for this comparable was $3,737,500.
Gold's third comparable, 6 Golden Court, sold for $4,050,000 on May 20, 2013, after five days on the market. It is located on a tenth of an acre on a peninsula in the Rowayton neighborhood of Norwalk, 3.37 miles southwest of the subject property. Although there is another house between the comparable property and the tip of the peninsula, the comparable property has excellent views of Long Island Sound on two sides. It is improved by a single-family house of 2, 826 square feet, with three bedrooms, two bathrooms, and two half baths. It was built in 1932 and remodeled in 2008. Gold did not regard this property as a good comparable because properties in Rowayton are significantly more valuable than properties in the Shorehaven neighborhood of East Norwalk, where the subject property is located. He considered it, however, because few properties had sold for more than $3,000,000 in Norwalk. He made negative adjustments of $1,500,000 for location and $250,000 for view, attributing the view adjustment primarily to the presence of the group home next to the subject property. He also made numerous positive adjustments, including adjustments of $450,000 for the size of the lot, $617,400 for the subject property's greater gross living area, $100,000 for the room count, $250,000 for functional utility, and other lesser adjustments for various factors. Gold's net adjusted sales price for this comparable was $3,813,950.
Gold also performed a cost approach analysis. Using two land sales as comparables, he concluded that the value of the land was $2,000,000, and using Marshall Valuation Services, he concluded that the depreciated value of the improvements for the subject property was $1,920,359 and the " as is" value of site improvements was $50,000, for a total opinion of value, using the cost approach, of $3,970,359. He testified, however, that he " substantially ignored" his cost approach and relied on his comparable sales analysis for his ultimate opinion of value.
IV
THE CITY'S CLAIMS
The city's appraiser, Michael Fazio, also used both a comparable sales approach and a cost approach to reach an opinion of value. Fazio testified that his first criterion in choosing a comparable sale for a waterfront property was that the comparable also have direct waterfront. None of the comparables he chose were in the Shorehaven area of Norwalk. One was in the Wilson Cove area, which he deemed to be similar to Shorehaven, and two were in Rowayton, which he deemed to be a substantially superior area of Norwalk. Based on his analysis of comparable sales, Fazio concluded the fair market value of the subject property to be $5,000,000. Using the cost approach, he estimated a value of $5,053,750. Like Gold, Fazio primarily relied on his comparable sales analysis to reach his final opinion of value of $5,000,000, substantially above the fair market value of $4,397,530 as determined by the city's board.
Fazio's first comparable, 4 Nathan Hale Drive, sold in June 2011, for $3,300,000, after almost a year on the market. It is located on .64 acres in the Wilson Cove area of Norwalk, approximately 2.45 miles southwest of the subject property. It is improved by a house that is 3, 085 square feet, with nine rooms, including three bedrooms and 4.1 bathrooms. Fazio made positive adjustments of $1,370,070 for differences in the size of the site and the house, the view, and various other features, including the presence of a finished basement, which the subject property does not have. Fazio testified that he chose this comparable because it had direct waterfront and a view of Long Island Sound, but he nevertheless increased the comparable's sale price by $330,000, which would indicate that the subject property had a significantly better view. He did not make any negative adjustments to the sale price even though the comparable was forty-nine years old and the subject property was only fourteen years old. He decided from photos in the Multiple Listing Service that the comparable property was " recently updated, " although the city did not offer evidence such as building permits to support that claim.
Fazio's second comparable, 18 Rocky Point Road, sold for $6,000,000 on August 9, 2013, after 328 days on the market. The property sits on .21 acres and is improved by a 6, 275 square foot house that is eight years old. This comparable is in Rowayton. Fazio testified that, in his opinion, Rowayton is about twenty percent better than Shorehaven, and he accordingly made a negative adjustment of $1,200,000 for the difference in location. He also made negative adjustments for an additional fireplace and certain exterior features. He made positive adjustments for the subject property's larger lot and larger gross living area, additional garage bay, and dock. Fazio's adjusted sales price for this comparable was $5,571,150.
Fazio's third comparable, 6 Golden Court, was the same property as Gold's third comparable, but the adjustments he made to the sale price of $4,050,000 were substantially different from Gold's adjustments. Both Gold and Fazio deemed this comparable's Rowayton location to be superior to the subject property. Where Gold made a negative adjustment of $1,500,000 for the location difference, Fazio made a negative adjustment of $810,000. Where Gold made a positive adjustment of $450,000 for the subject property's substantially larger lot, Fazio made a positive adjustment of $600,000. Where Gold made a negative " view" adjustment of $250,000 for the presence of the group home next door to the subject property, Fazio made no adjustment. Where Gold made a positive adjustment of $717,400 for the subject property's larger size and greater number of rooms, Fazio made a positive adjustment of $693,500. Where Gold made a positive adjustment of $250,000 for the subject property's greater functional utility, Fazio made no adjustment for functional utility. Where Gold made a $5,000 positive adjustment for the presence of the fullhouse generator, Fazio made no adjustment. Where Gold made a $25,000 positive adjustment because the subject property has a three-car garage while the comparable has only a one-car carport, Fazio made a $40,000 positive adjustment. Where Gold made a positive adjustment of $56,550 for the subject property's dock, Fazio made a positive adjustment of $120,000. The difference in their total adjustments was $919,550. Gold's net adjusted sales price for this comparable was $3,813,950, while Fazio's net adjusted sales price was $4,733,500.
Fazio also conducted a cost approach analysis as a check on the value he reached through the sales comparison approach. He relied on property sales to extract a land value of $2,700,000 and used Marshall Valuation Service to calculate the depreciated value of the improvements as $2,103,750 and the " as is" value of site improvements at $250,000, for a total estimated value of $5,053,750. His ultimate opinion, however, was that the " sales comparison best reflects the subject's as is value, " and his final opinion of value was the value he reached by the sales comparison method--$5,000,000.
V
ANALYSIS
Principal issues in the plaintiff's appeal concern the square footage of the subject property's gross living area, the market effect of the group home next door, the choice of comparable properties and associated value adjustments, and the significance of the valuations based on the cost approach. As to the square footage, it is clear that the city's assessment overstated the square footage of the property's gross living area by more than one thousand square feet, which necessarily affected the city's valuation of the property. However, in a de novo appeal under General Statutes § 12-117a, the focus is not on errors by the assessor but on the ascertainment of the true and actual value of the property. The square footage calculations by appraisers for the plaintiff and the city were substantially similar, with Gold calculating the gross living area to be 6, 942 square feet and Fazio calculating it be 6, 916 square feet, a difference of only twenty-six square feet. The court finds that Gold's square footage calculations are the most credible but not significantly different from Fazio's calculations and thus of limited significance in determining whose opinion of value is, on the whole, more credible.
As to the effect of the group home next door, Gold testified that he made a negative adjustment of $250,000 in comparing the " view" of the comparable properties with direct waterfront because of the presence of the group home next door. He did not substantiate this opinion with any specific market data but based it upon his own judgment and experience. He testified that the use of the property for a group home was an " atypical use" and that this was not " a typical neighbor that one would go next door to have a cup of coffee with . . . or interact with socially." On cross examination, he elaborated that because the state owns the group home property, it is not restricted by local zoning standards. In addition, Jay Kaiser, the plaintiff's husband, testified that the state did not maintain the property to the same degree as other neighborhood owners. He testified that there was standing water in front of the group home for a long time after Superstorm Sandy and that the state did not repair damage to its seawall for two years after the storm, making it necessary for the plaintiff to construct a seawall between her property and the group home to prevent water intrusion onto the subject property from the adjacent property.
Fazio testified, to the contrary, that in his opinion, the group home next door to the subject property did not impact the subject property at all. He understood that it had been donated to the state by a family that had lived there and had a son who was mentally challenged. The group home was visually similar to other houses in the neighborhood. Fazio testified that he had seen the group home on many occasions and that he had never seen any unusual activity at it.
The city argues that Gold's consideration of the group home next door violates the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP) in violation of General Statutes § 20-504, which requires all licensed appraisers to follow USPAP standards. The ethical rules of USPAP provide that an appraiser " must not use or rely on unsupported conclusions relating to characteristics such as race, color, religion, national origin, gender, marital status, familial status, age, receipt of public assistance income, handicap, or any unsupported conclusion that homogeneity of such characteristics is necessary to maximize value." The Appraisal Foundation, Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice, Ethics Rule (2014-2015 Ed.). The plaintiff responds that Gold certified his compliance with USPAP standards and that his opinion of the market detriment is based on the substandard maintenance of the state's property, not on its occupants. Gold's testimony, however, clearly included consideration of the fact that the occupants were persons with disabilities--" not a typical neighbor that one would go next door to have a cup of coffee with . . ."
Neither party provided citations to any cases discussing the significance of compliance with USPAP standards in determining the value of a property. Nor did either party provide citations to any cases discussing the impact of a group home on property values for neighboring properties. The court's own research did not find any controlling authority on the issue.
After considering all the evidence concerning the group home, including all the testimony and photographs, the court finds, as a matter of fact, that the presence of the group home next door did not have a substantial impact on the market value of the property as of October 1, 2013. Notably, Jay Kaiser did not testify that the presence of the group home affected the plaintiff's considerations when she purchased the property, and the plaintiff did not testify at all. Jay Kaiser's complaints about the group home property related to the state's slow response to Superstorm Sandy, the most extreme weather event to strike the coast in many years. Before the revaluation date of October 1, 2013, however, the plaintiff had taken steps to protect the subject property from any shortcomings in seawall maintenance at the state's property. More specifically, by the revaluation date, the plaintiff had constructed a seawall between the state's property and the subject property. From the photographs in evidence and the testimony as a whole, the court finds that the state's group home property is only partially visible from the ground level of the subject property because of the seawall, fence, and trees between the subject property and the group home. Moreover, the group home structure is similar in character to other properties in the neighborhood, and its use is not readily discernible as anything different from a single-family residence.
The plaintiff also argues that the state is not constrained by local zoning laws and could increase the number of residents at will or change the use of the property. The court is not persuaded. Assuming the plaintiff's argument with respect to the state's immunity from local zoning laws is correct--although unsupported by legal citations--the plaintiff did not offer evidence that the state has ever had a significantly greater number of residents at the group home. Nor did the plaintiff address other possible restraints on an increase in the number of residents or a change in use, such as state regulations governing group homes or deed restrictions that might have accompanied the donation of the property to the state. The plaintiff's argument is based on speculative possible future changes in degree or type of use and does not adequately support a $250,000 reduction in the value of the subject property.
While the court rejects the claim that the mere presence of a group home decreases the property value by $250,000, the court does recognize that the plaintiff lost the use of five feet of shoreline and of a five-foot-wide strip of property for the length of the seawall she built between the subject property and the group home. That effective diminution in the shoreline and usable space, although slight in relation to the overall size of the subject property, may have a negative effect on the value of the property. Neither party, however, attempted to quantify the dollar value of this diminution, and the court concludes that it does not have sufficient evidence to assign a specific value to it.
With respect to the analysis of comparable properties, the plaintiff's and the city's appraisers agreed that there were a very limited number of sales that could be considered comparable. The plaintiff's appraiser, Gold, favored proximity to the subject property as a primary consideration, while the city's appraiser, Fazio, favored waterfront properties with a direct view of the Sound. On the whole, except for the issue of the group home, the court finds that Gold's testimony and comparables are generally more credible than Fazio's testimony and comparables. For one thing, it is the court's opinion that Fazio substantially understated the locational difference between Rowayton, where two of his comparables were located, and Shorehaven, where the subject property and two of Gold's comparables are located. Neither the plaintiff nor the city presented sales of properties in the Shorehaven area for more than $4,000,000 at any time between 2008 and the revaluation date of October 1, 2013. Of the two Rowayton sales discussed in the record, 18 Rocky Point Road was more similar in age and building size to the subject property, but it was on .21 acre as compared to the one acre of the subject property. The property at 18 Rocky Point Road sold for $6,000,000 about eighteen months after the plaintiff paid $3,537,000 for the subject property. Even assuming a modest upward trend in the market over that time period, the difference in these two sale prices indicates a differential greater than twenty percent for location. The second Rowayton property, at 6 Golden Court, with a house one-third the size of the subject property on a lot that is onetenth the size of the subject property, sold for $4,050,000, after only five days on the market, fifteen months after the plaintiff purchased the subject property.
Fazio testified that 22 Shorehaven sold four months after the revaluation date of October 1, 2013, for $5,100,000. Gold had previously testified that 22 Shorehaven had sold as a teardown for $1,825,000 in 2010, and he had used that property in considering land value in his cost approach, with an upward adjustment for improved market conditions in 2013. Fazio had not disclosed or relied on the February 2014 sale of the property at 22 Shorehaven, with its newly constructed dwelling, in his appraisal report. He agreed that it would not have been known to the city as of the revaluation date. Because the 2014 sale of 22 Shorehaven was not addressed in Fazio's report and because he provided very limited information about it in his testimony, the court declines to give any weight to that 2014 sale.
In addition, some of Fazio's adjustments were unexplained and, in the court's view, inexplicable. For instance, with respect to his first comparable, 4 Nathan Hale Drive, he added $330,000 as a positive adjustment to the comparable's sales price for its view, although it was chosen as a comparable primarily because it had a similar view directly on Long Island Sound. For the same comparable, Fazio added $35,420 to the sales price of the comparable because it has a 984-square-foot basement, of which a 787-square-foot space is finished, while the subject property has only a crawl space. This should have been a negative adjustment to the comparable's sales price because the comparable was superior to the subject property in that respect.
With respect to Fazio's second and third comparables, both of which were in Rowayton, Fazio made $600,000 positive adjustments to both properties for site size. Yet the second comparable, at 18 Rocky Point Road, was a .21-acre property, while the third property, at 6 Golden Court, was a .1-acre property. Fazio did not explain why the same adjustment should be made for the two Rowayton properties when the 18 Rocky Point Road site was twice the size of the 6 Golden Court site.
The city's criticisms of Gold's comparables are not persuasive. For instance, the city argues that Gold's first comparable, 1 Canfield Crossing, was much older than the subject property. In fact, the house at 1 Canfield Crossing was built in 2012 and sold as new construction on January 11, 2013, less than ten months before the revaluation date. While the city properly notes that 1 Canfield Crossing is not a direct waterfront property and has no dock, Gold made reasonable positive adjustments to its sale price for those factors.
The city also argues that the plaintiff made close to a million dollars of improvements to the property after purchasing it in February 2012, for $3,537,000. Jay Kaiser credibly testified, however, that a substantial portion of the expenditures made in 2012 were to correct unexpected deficiencies in the heating, plumbing, and structural systems of the house, which at that time was only twelve years old. These expenditures were made to bring the house up to the quality the plaintiff had believed she was buying for $3,537,000. While there were certainly some renovations and improvements that increased the value of the property, such as the kitchen renovation and the enlargement of the media room with its excellent view of the Sound, Gold testified credibly that it would be erroneous to assume that there was a dollar-for-dollar increase in the value of the property based on the cost of the repairs.
The city also criticizes Gold for essentially ignoring the value derived from his cost approach. This criticism is unpersuasive because both Fazio and Gold relied ultimately on their sales comparison analyses rather than their cost approach analyses. Moreover, the value found by the court exceeds the value found by Gold in his cost approach.
In sum, after consideration of all of the documentary and testimonial evidence, considering the credibility of the witnesses, and taking into account the court's own knowledge of factors contributing to the value of property, the court finds that the plaintiff is aggrieved by the city's valuation of the subject property, and that its true and actual value as of October 1, 2013 was $4,000,000.
VI
CONCLUSION
The value of the subject property as of October 1, 2013, is found to be $4,000,000. Judgment is rendered for the plaintiff without costs to any party.