Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Property Taxes topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Canterbury select board asks for records after resident learns parcel reclassified, $40,000 charge cited
Summary
Select board members reviewed a longtime property tax discrepancy after a resident said a 141-acre “backland” parcel moved from unbuildable to buildable on town records; the board asked staff to produce revaluation notices and the current-use application and tabled further action.
Canterbury Select Board members reviewed a tax-billing dispute after a resident said town records reclassified a 141-acre backland parcel as buildable, producing an unexpected assessment increase and a $40,000 payment figure.
The board moved to gather the assessor’s notices and the parcel’s current-use application and to revisit the matter at the next meeting to determine whether a clerical error or another issue produced the reassessment.
The resident told the board, “the amount of the, request for the payment is $40,000,” and said they had long assumed the acreage was in current use and paid what they believed to be consistent bills. Select Board members asked the assessor and administrative staff to provide copies of the revaluation notices that were sent in 2006 and 2009 and the original current-use enrollment paperwork.
Board members described the history they see in town files: a parcel created by subdivision in 1999, a large backland parcel that previously was listed as unbilledable, and a revaluation in 2006 that showed the parcel as buildable. One member said the tax bill appeared to jump from “a couple $100” to an assessed value that produced a $123,000 tax figure, and that the size and timing of that increase ordinarily prompts taxpayer inquiry.
Select Board members also discussed the owner’s record of filing abatements in the past and whether mailings from the assessor were received and read. The resident said their mortgage lender pays tax bills and that some notices may not have been personally opened; board members stressed that receiving notices does not always translate into reviewing details and that more documentary review is required.
The board did not approve any refunds or credits at the meeting. Instead they directed staff to pull the assessor’s correspondence, the current-use application and the notices sent at revaluation, and to report back with the documentation at the next regular meeting so the board can evaluate next steps. Ending
The board scheduled follow-up: staff will provide copies of assessor notices and the current-use application for review and the Select Board will resume the discussion at its next meeting.
