Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Historic Tax Abatement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Economic development committee advances historic tax-abatement request for Wadsworth Street property
Summary
The committee advanced a historic tax-abatement application for a Wadsworth Street property after hearing a historic-architect’s report that the owner has spent about $225,121 on rehabilitation; the panel agreed to refer the item to Land Use and the preservation review bodies before it proceeds to the council and public hearing.
Alan Munkitrick, an architect with Kitrick Associates, told the Middletown Economic Development Committee that ‘‘virtually everything’’ the applicant completed complies with the U.S. Secretary of the Interior's rehabilitation guidelines, but that the window replacements are the one notable exception.
Munkitrick said the owner has invested significant money in the property and that, aside from windows, roofing, painting, drainage, interior refinishing and woodwork ‘‘was done in conformance with those standards.’’ Committee staff and the architect confirmed that receipts supporting claimed expenditures are on file with the development office and that a synopsis provided by the architect lists $225,121 spent to date.
Committee members questioned a discrepancy between the city's tax card, which lists the property as multifamily, and the owner's representation that it is a single-family unit. The applicant, Sharon Riley, introduced herself and said family members had previously occupied separate sides of the house but that she has ‘‘made it into a 1 family unit.’’ Staff said the assessor's record will be corrected if appropriate.
Staff and committee members also discussed how the abatement would be calculated. Staff said the draft ordinance pins the abatement to 70% of the assessed value for each fiscal year so that it is not a full abatement; for example, taxes of about $11,000 would produce an abated payment in the range staff described as roughly $7,500 to $7,800 under the ordinance's approach.
The committee noted the ordinance's qualification threshold, which staff said requires at least $15,000 of qualified expenditures; the applicant exceeds that threshold. The architect listed seven remaining items (porch lattice, cellar windows, mortar pointing, driveway work, landscaping, attic insulation) he recommended be completed and said the owner had indicated willingness to finish the work.
Committee members asked whether additional advisory review should occur; staff said design-review and preservation-board review lines were included to give added scrutiny because of the property's historic nature but that such reviews are advisory for this case. The committee moved to advance the matter with date modifications so related committees may review the materials and the motion carried by voice vote. Staff will refer the item to Land Use and to GCC for further vetting before the item goes to the council-level public hearing and possible final action.
Next steps: staff will confirm the assessor record, circulate the architect’s receipts and synopsis to the referral committees, and return to the committee after Land Use and advisory preservation reviews.
