Laserfiche WebLink
• <br /> Board of Assessors Meeting Page 2 <br /> 4+ <br /> Progress of Upcoming Revaluation (continued) <br /> should be quite interesting, as the sales in the neighborhood <br /> afford establishment of value for the parcels. discussion <br /> followed. <br /> Chairman DeLory questioned if there was a printout of this <br /> information . Mr. Greig explained that he manually calculated the <br /> number of parcels in each of those neighborhoods . <br /> Parcel 128, --Lot 1 <br /> Vice Chairman Greig inquired what house on Cross Street <br /> was owned by the Chinese Family. Mr. DeLory stated it should be <br /> night next to the parcel owned by Henning, Parcel. 128 , Lot 11 . <br /> Mr. Greig accessed the computer; he identified the subject <br /> property as Parcel 128 , Lot l . . . and he pointed out that the <br /> owner is listed as Lawrence and Arlene Siegal , Mr. Porter asked <br /> if the Chinese Family sold the property to The siegal.s . <br /> Vice Chairman Greig. found information on the computer <br /> showing that Mr. and Mrs . Chen bought the property in 1989 for <br /> $70 i o Listed on August 14 , 1992 , was a transaction by Mr. <br /> and Mrs. Chen to Eileen Chen apparently, title must have <br /> been- passed to Mrs . Chen. <br /> Mr. Greig further informed that on April 12 , 1995 , <br /> Mrs. Chen sold the property to The Siegals for $585 ,000 a <br /> loss of $120-,000 ! ! Mr. Greig stated that this sale was noted in <br /> The Minutes of the Meeting of August 1 , 1995 , which sparked his <br /> curiosity. He expressed opinion that this transaction may not be <br /> indicative of a "good sale" 0 . at first there were two <br /> property owners, then there was only one owner who sold the <br /> property at quite a loss ! 1. The current Mashpee assessment is <br /> $ 71, 00 . Lengthy discussion followed. <br /> Abatement A2plications <br /> Chairman DeLory questioned if Nix`. Greig felt there may <br /> be many abatement applications this revaluation. vice Chairman <br /> Greig expressed opinion there may be more than last revaluation, <br /> but may be not . 0 . because of the timeshare properties * H <br /> felt there nay be mo 'e applications for the "101" properties <br /> simply because the market is on the rise, Chairman DeLory <br /> pointed out that property owners are not taking care of their <br /> homes. Discussion followed. <br />