REAL ESTATE ADVISORY SERVICES

Similar documents
REAL ESTATE ADVISORY SERVICES

REAL ESTATE ADVISORY SERVICES

By F. Clifford Gibbons, Esq. 1

Land Preservation in the Highlands Region

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT APPROVAL OF THE TAX COURT COMMITTEE ON OPINIONS TAX COURT OF NEW JERSEY

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

PASSAIC COUNTY IMPROVEMENT AUTHORITY. REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS PCIA CAPITAL EQUIPMENT LEASE PROGRAM November 13, Introduction

STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT **********

Summary of Status of Council on Affordable Housing (COAH) Rule Compliance

ASSEMBLY, No. 901 STATE OF NEW JERSEY. 218th LEGISLATURE PRE-FILED FOR INTRODUCTION IN THE 2018 SESSION

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CARBON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW

RECIPROCAL EASEMENT OPTION CONTRACT WITNESSETH:

SENATE, No STATE OF NEW JERSEY. 208th LEGISLATURE INTRODUCED MAY 6, 1999

APPRAISAL REPORT OF GROSS ACRES/17.72± USABLE ACRES OF VACANT COMMERCIAL LAND

TO BE COMPLETED BY BOROUGH STAFF ONLY. Date Filed Application No. Zoning Board Application Fees. Scheduled for: Review for completeness Hearing

WhereNet Corp. ( WhereNet ), by and through its undersigned counsel, hereby files this

ANNUAL REMEDIATION FEE REPORTING FORM INSTRUCTIONS

WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution , the activities of the Bank must be guided by the Highlands Regional Master Plan; and

Filed 21 August 2001) Taxation--real property appraisal--country club fees included

Real Estate Appraisal Professional Standards

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 118,206 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. JAYHAWK PIPELINE, L.L.C., Appellee, MEMORANDUM OPINION

STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION DIVISION OF FLORIDA CONDOMINIUMS, TIMESHARES AND MOBILE HOMES

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/25/ :59 PM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 11 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/25/2016

Others present, David Wegman, Nancy Sproule, George Sproule, and Town Board member Mike Steppe

The Cost of Value: PV and Property Tax Policy. Justin Barnes North Carolina Solar Center/DSIRE World Renewable Energy Forum 2012 Denver, CO

AVA. Accredited Valuation Analyst - AVA Exam.

Typical Valuation Approaches and How to Deal With Them

Date: March 2018 TOWN OF WATERFORD Department of Assessment

APPLICANT NAME: MAILING ADDRESS OF PROPERTY PROPOSED FOR DEVELOPMENT (include number, street, post office, CASE #:

February 27, Country Lane Califon, NJ Califon, NJ 07830

2017 Uniform Multifamily Application Templates

Village of Port Chester Industrial Development Agency REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS FOR COMMERCIAL APPRAISAL CONSULTING SERVICES RFQ #

Fiscal Impact Analysis Multi-family Development 20 Corporate Drive Burlington, Massachusetts

Examples of Quantitative Support Methods from Real World Appraisals

Options to Purchase Real Estate An article on options in the

Please find attached a brief overview of our services and an informative review of Chase Group s SBA-compliant business valuation services.

AEI Fund Management, Inc Wells Fargo Place 30 Seventh Street East St. Paul, MN (fax)

ARLINGTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR CITRUS COUNTY, FLORIDA

Hoiska v. Town of East Montpelier ( ) 2014 VT 80. [Filed 18-Jul-2014]

Building Wealth in Chunks

Sewer System Project. LOCATION Village Sewer Assessment Township of Pequannock, Morris County, New Jersey

Knowledge Learning Corporation ( KLC ), by its undersigned counsel, hereby objects to

Sewer System Project. LOCATION Village Sewer Assessment Township of Pequannock, Morris County, New Jersey

940 Little Britain Road, New Windsor, Orange County, NY. Zoned LC - Limited Commercial. Municipal water and sewer available

SUBJECT: Interagency Appraisal and Evaluation Guidelines

INC SAURAGE COMPANY INC DBA SAURAGE REALTORS

By motion dated January 3, 2 008, the New Jersey Council. on Affordable Housing (the "Council" or "COAH") received a request

PLANNING BOARD APPLICATION

INVENTORY, APPRAISAL AND RECORD OF VALUE

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Zebra Enterprise Solutions Corp. f/k/a WhereNet Corp.

Summary of Assignment. Identification of Property and Appraisal

EXHIBIT D ESCROW AGREEMENT

Edmonton Composite Assessment Review Board

Real estate sales validation questionnaires; required to accompany transfers of title; retention time; use of information.

IN THE OREGON TAX COURT MAGISTRATE DIVISION Property Tax ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

AGENDA BYRAM TOWNSHIP PLANNING BOARD MAY 17, 2018 REGULAR MEETING 7:30 P.M.

Oregon, Brownfields, and the Land Bank and Tax Abatement Authorities. How Does It All Work And Why Cities and Counties Should Be Interested

CONSOLIDATION INCENTIVE AID

PLEASANT VIEW OFFICE WAREHOUSE

New Security for Tenants and Their Lenders: ALTA Introduces Expanded Leasehold Coverages

Overview of Federal and State Floodplain Management Programs

H I G H L A N D S R E G I O N A L

AICPA Valuation Services VS Section Statements on Standards for Valuation Services VS Section 100 Valuation of a Business, Business Ownership

Re: Comments on Proposed Rule Part 722, Real Estate Appraisals; RIN 3133 AE79

Case Illustrates Twists and Turns in Dealing with Rights of First Refusal Martin Doyle Facts of the Case

Senior Housing Properties Trust Announces Fourth Quarter and Year End 2017 Results

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. Plaintiff, Defendants.

380 US 46, SOUTH HACKENSACK, NJ

BPO Best Practices Guide

North Walnut Street

Connecticut General Life Insurance Company and related CIGNA entities (collectively

APPRAISAL REVIEW REPORT

MONTEREY COUNTY PLANNING & BUILDING INSPECTION DEPARTMENT st AVENUE MARINA, CA (831) FAX: (831)

CITY OF VINELAND ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPLICATION INSTRUCTION SHEET

Case KJC Doc 1303 Filed 05/11/17 Page 1 of 4 IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE.

Subject: LandWatch s comments on Salinas Economic Development Element FEIR. Dear Mayor Gunter and Members of the Salinas City Council:

HIGHLANDS REGIONAL MASTER PLAN MONITORING PROGRAM REAL ESTATE & HOUSING STAKEHOLDER MEETING

AFFORDABLE HOUSING COMMISSION TOWN OF CHARLESTOWN 4540 SOUTH COUNTY TRAIL CHARLESTOWN, RI 02813

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR ESCAMBIA COUNTY, FLORIDA ORDER ON CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

FLAT FEE MLS LISTING AGREEMENT

CTAS e-li. Published on e-li ( January 21, 2018 Greenbelt

SCOPE OF SERVICES Appraisal Consultant Services For SR 710/Beeline Highway FM

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC LOWER COURT CASE NO. 3D PRIME WEST, INC. and PRIME WEST CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC.

National Legislative Program Evaluation Society September 19, Pennsylvania Legislative Budget and Finance Committee

ANNUAL REPORT SOMERSET COUNTY OPEN SPACE ADVISORY COMMITTEE

FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE TELEVISION STATIONS OWNED BY NEW JERSEY PUBLIC BROADCASTING AUTHORITY AS OF DECEMBER 1, 2010 PREPARED FOR

TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE AGENDA NOVEMBER 8, 2017

Developing a Reviewer s Mentality... 1

No COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW MEXICO 1976-NMCA-043, 89 N.M. 239, 549 P.2d 1074 April 20, 1976 COUNSEL

IMPORTANT UPDATED ADVISORY ON TAX SHELTER ABUSE INVOLVING CONSERVATION DONATIONS

Case KG Doc 316 Filed 10/08/15 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE ) ) )

CRN Presentation Review

COUNSEL JUDGES. Federici, J., wrote the opinion. WE CONCUR: MACK EASLEY, Chief Justice, H. VERN PAYNE, Justice. AUTHOR: FEDERICI OPINION

TOWNSHIP COUNCIL AGENDA REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M. September 17, 2018 Municipal Building, 600 Bloomfield Avenue

Edmonton Composite Assessment Review Board

Guide Note 16 Arbitration 1

N.J.S.A. 40:27-1 et seq. APA-NJ Professional Planners Review Course Saturday, April 2, 2011

Office of the City Auditor. Audit Report

IN RE CLINTON TOWNSHIP, ) NEW JERSEY COUNCIL HUNTERDON COUNTY ) ON AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Transcription:

HOLZHAUER & HOLENSTEIN, LLC REAL ESTATE ADVISORY SERVICES MICHAEL E. HOLENSTEIN, MAI, CTA, SCGREA SILBERT ARTS BUILDING 222 HIGH STREET STAFF APPRAISERS: SUITE 202 WILLIAM P. CONYERS NEWTON, NJ, 07860 RICHARD W. JONES PHONE (973) 300-0121 ROBERT L. HOLENSTEIN*, MAI, RM, SCGREA FAX (973) 300-0171 *Consultant to the Firm October 24, 2007 Hueston McNulty, PC Attorneys at Law 256 Columbia Turnpike, Suite 207 Florham Park, NJ 07932 Attn: Stephen H. Shaw, Esq., as Warren County Special Counsel, Highlands Litigation Re: Appraisal & Consulting Services, Commentary on the Highlands Council Analysis of Highlands Act Exemptions Dear Mr. Shaw: In accordance with your request, I have reviewed the Highlands Council Analysis of Highlands Act Exemptions found at www.highlands.state.nj.us/njhighlands/ specifically the press releases for 10/12/07. Within this Press Release (10/12/07) the Highlands Council states that there are 20,914 parcels of undeveloped land within the Highlands Region that have the potential to exercise one of the exemptions to allow (or facilitate) construction of a single family home. The Press Release goes on to state that 17,900 of the said parcels are currently zoned for residential use and may be able to exercise the single family dwelling exemptions without having to seek a zoning change or use variance. It may be inferred from the above, as verified from actual review of the reported study, that: 1. of the total (20,914) parcels, 3,014 are non-residential. What is not clear from the Press Release is the disposition of all 20,914 parcels. The spread sheets included on the Highlands Council s web site within the above-cited release date (10/12/07) confirm that, of the total: 1. 10,181 residential parcels are located within the Planning District 2. 7,719 residential parcels are located within the Preservation District 3. 2,395 non-residential parcels are located in the Planning District, and 4. 619 non-residential parcels are located in the Preservation District. 1

Therefore, only 7,719 parcels of ground are residentially zoned lands that currently lie within the Preservation District. The Council suggests that these 7,719 parcels are among those (parcels cited as being 17,900 in total) that, may be able to exercise the single family dwelling exemptions without having to seek a zoning change or use variance. ******************************************************************************* Further in accordance with your request, I have reviewed the prior reports produced by Holzhauer & Holenstein, LLC (02/14/06 & 09/01/07) for consistency or revision in reaction to the Highlands Council s Analysis of Highlands Act Exemptions. Within the Holzhauer & Holenstein, LLC Letter Report of September 1, 2007 at page # 11 is found the following response-rebuttal : Department Response: 5. The Department s rules contain several exemptions to permit single-family dwellings so the estimated loss of 215,000 units is an obvious overestimate. To date, the Department has confirmed 351 exemptions. H&H Rebuttal: The Department s inability to be specific about the numbers and types of exemptions as differentiated from stating some exemptions highlights the utterly picayune relief that the exemptions offer affected property owners. The 351 confirmed exemptions reflect 0.20% (that s 1/20 th of a percent) impact on the cited numbers. The reader is reminded that the number of units cited (@ 215,000) was taken directly from the Act Rules document (@ page 215) and was rounded down from the stated build-out numbers of 215,421 units. The confirmed exemptions (351) fall firmly within the rounding error (421) of the analysis and are therefore inconsequential. In light of the Highlands Council s current analysis, the Council is apparently taking the position that general Exemptions #1 & #2 will facilitate development of a single unit of housing on up to 7,719 plats of residentially zoned ground within the Preservation District. The impact that such development may have on the conclusions previously cited by H&H is limited to the following: 1. The 7,719 possible exemptions may reflect a 3.6% impact on the H&H conclusions (calculated as 7,719 / 215,421). 2

As the impact cited by H&H is $80 Billion Dollars of lost development having a gross economic impact of $160 Billion Dollars, it follows that Exemptions #1 & #2 may have the effect of reducing the impact on lost residential development potentials and economic conditions by the same 3.6%. However, the Highlands Council s current analysis also provides, for the first time, a calculation for the numbers of non-residential parcels that will be affected by the Act and Act Rules. Re-cited from above, 3,014 parcels (of the 20,914 total) are non-residential. Differentiated further, of the 3,014 non-residential parcels, 619 are located within the Preservation District. The Act and Act Rules effectively reduce these parcels to having utility as/for a single family dwelling subject to Highlands Exemption and zone district variance approvals. To assess the financial impact that the Act and Act Rules has on these 619 non-residential parcels, H&H, LLC has conducted an analysis of the relationship between the worth of improved residential and improved non-residential parcels within the affected Counties of Hunterdon, Morris, Passaic, Sussex, and Warren. Within this analysis, the relationship between the value of residential and non-residential premises is expressed as a factor rather than as a dollar amount because the factors are derived from the aggregate assessed values within the respective Counties that can therefore only be compared, one to the other, as a factor given the myriads of equalization ratios for each municipality within each county. The results of this study are attached hereto. Based on the residential/non-residential relationship study, it is evident that, on average, nonresidential premises range from approximately three to five times the worth of residential premises. The average relationship among the Study Counties is (Factor = 3.87X). I conclude that a factor of four (Factor = 4X) is reasonable for discussion purposes. Setting aside one unit for the base unit of residential that is created by a lost non-residential unit (one for one, 619 = 619) each lost non-residential unit will eclipse (by value) three residential units. Therefore, the net result (H&H impact opinion) of the Act and Act Rules can be further revised by concluding that any positive benefit incident to the speculative residential exemptions (7,719) will be significantly offset by a loss of non-residential development having an effective unit worth of 1,857 units (3 X 619). The number 1,857 is approximately 25% of 7,719. As the exemptions total, if fully manifest @ 7,719 units, will only result in revision of the H&H Conclusions by approximately 3.6%, seventy-five percent of that amount (2.70%) is evident in consideration of the offsetting impact on non-residential parcels. 3

Where a calculation of 3.6% is regarded as possibly significant (albeit within the purview of rounding error), I conclude that a result of 2.7% is virtually inconsequential and within the realm of reasonable rounding error. Although duly noted, I conclude that the Highlands Council Analysis of Highlands Act Exemptions has no net impact on the prior reported opinions rendered by H&H, LLC. Thank you for this opportunity to have continued our service to the Warren County Board of Chosen Freeholders. Respectfully submitted, HOLZHAUER & HOLENSTEIN, LLC By: MEH/tps via Electronic 10/24/07 MICHAEL E. HOLENSTEIN, MAI, CTA SCGREA: NY, NJ-RG01234, PA-GA1733R MEH/tps Enclosures File #1073-10-07 Exemptions Summary 4

Hunterdon County Real Property Residential 40,542 $ 13,087,698,900 322,818 Commercial 2,031 $ 1,873,126,823 Industrial 155 $ 370,149,710 1,026,202 Morris County Real Property Ratio of Non-Residential to Residential = 3.18 Residential 146,236 $ 45,689,330,230 312,436 Commercial 6,726 $ 10,455,808,911 Industrial 996 $ 2,564,928,201 1,686,187 Passaic County Real Property Ratio of Non-Residential to Residential = 5.40 Residential 105,522 $ 15,485,021,573 146,747 Commercial 7,023 $ 3,384,685,240 Industrial 1,415 $ 1,448,039,753 572,733 Sussex County Real Property Ratio of Non-Residential to Residential = 3.90 Residential 53,050 $ 8,748,339,330 164,907 Commercial 2,173 $ 981,004,712 Industrial 194 $ 133,172,300 470,713 Warren County Real Property Ratio of Non-Residential to Residential = 2.85 Residential 32,909 $ 6,420,991,477 195,114 Commercial 1,835 $ 919,463,503 Industrial 197 $ 664,085,450 779,306 Ratio of Non-Residential to Residential = 3.99 Average Ratio of Non-Residential to Residential = 3.87 * * 2006 New Jersey Municipal Data Book, Real Property Valuation - parcels 2005 5