Louis &i Holly Salemy v. Board of Assessors of the Town of Concord (September 29, 2017)

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

APPELLATE TAX BOARD



LOUIS & HOLLY SALEMY     	v. 		BOARD OF ASSESSORS OF   
 								THE TOWN OF CONCORD
													         
Docket Nos.: F326300 (FY 2015)			Promulgated:	
		   F329440 (FY 2016)			September 29, 2017			


	These are appeals filed under the formal procedure, pursuant to G.L. c. 58A, § 7 and G.L. c. 59, §§ 64 and 65, from the refusal of the Board of Assessors of the Town of Concord ("appellee" or "assessors") to abate taxes on certain real estate in Concord, owned by and assessed to Louis & Holly Salemy ("appellants") under G.L. c. 59, §§ 11 and 38, for fiscal years 2015 and 2016 ("fiscal years at issue").  
	Commissioner Rose heard these appeals. Chairman Hammond and Commissioners Scharaffa, Good, and Chmielinski joined him in the decisions for the appellants.  
	These findings of fact and report are made pursuant to a request by the appellants under G.L. c. 58A, § 13 and 831 CMR 1.32.
  	Richard L. Jones, Esq. and Nathaniel R.B. Koslof, Esq. for the appellants.
	
R. Lane Partridge, Chairman of the assessors, for the appellee. 

Findings of Fact and Report

I. Introduction and Jurisdiction
On January 1, 2014 and January 5, 2015, the relevant valuation and assessment dates for the fiscal years at issue, the appellants were the owners of a 4.29-acre improved parcel of land, identified by the appellee as Parcel ID 7H/1258 and with an address of 68 Great Meadows Road in Concord ("subject property").  
For fiscal year 2015, the assessors valued the subject property at $4,393,600 and assessed a tax thereon, at the rate of $14.29 per thousand, in the total amount of $62,784.54.  In accordance with G.L. c. 59, § 57C, the appellants paid the tax due without incurring interest.  On January 7, 2015, in accordance with G.L. c. 59, § 59, the appellants timely filed an abatement application for the subject property with the assessors, which they denied on February 24, 2015.  In accordance with G.L. c. 59, §§ 64 and 65, the appellants seasonably filed a petition with the Appellate Tax Board ("Board") on May 15, 2015. 
For fiscal year 2016, the assessors valued the subject property at $4,550,400 and assessed a tax thereon, at the rate of $13.92 per thousand, in the total amount of $63,341.57.  In accordance with G.L. c. 59, § 57C, the appellants paid the tax due without incurring interest.  On January 16, 2016, in accordance with G.L. c. 59, § 59, the appellants timely filed an abatement application for the subject property with the assessors, which they denied on February 11, 2016.  In accordance with G.L. c. 59, §§ 64 and 65, the appellants seasonably filed a petition with the Board on May 4, 2016.  
On the basis of these facts, the Board found and ruled that it had jurisdiction to hear and decide these appeals.
The subject property is located on Great Meadows Road, a private way off Monument Street in an area of mixed-style older dwellings as well as many large, newer Colonials.  The Great Meadows Road area and Monument Street are among the most desirable residential sections of Concord due to the estate characteristics of many properties, large home sites, semi-rural setting, and proximity to densely wooded parkland and also the Concord Center business district.  Located to the south of the subject property is Minute Man National Park, which encompasses approximately 970 acres in Concord, Lexington and Lincoln.  The Concord River is located just north of the subject property on the opposite side of Great Meadows Road, and the Great Meadows Road Refuge is located to the east.
The topography of the subject property is such that it slopes up gently from the street.  The subject property is nicely landscaped with terraced lawns, manicured shrubbery, various gardens, and brick pathways.  
The subject property is improved with a two-and-a-half-story Colonial-Revival-style, single-family dwelling built in 1913 and renovated and expanded in 1988-1989 ("subject dwelling".)  Also situated on the subject property is an in-ground swimming pool with a gazebo, a pool house, and a five-bay garage with a second-story apartment ("carriage house").  The subject dwelling has a brick exterior and hip-style roof with slate shingles and copper gutters and downspouts.
The subject dwelling has a total of nine rooms, including five bedrooms, as well as six full bathrooms and two half bathrooms, with a total above-grade living area of 6,444 square feet.  The first floor of the subject dwelling contains a large foyer, a formal living room, a formal dining room, a step-down family room with a built-in wet bar, an eat-in kitchen, a mud room, as well as two half bathrooms.  There are three staircases leading to the second floor, which has a master bedroom with a large master bathroom, walk-in closets, a separate dressing room, and a balcony.  There are also three additional bedrooms on this level, each with its own full bathroom.  The third floor has one bedroom, with a large closet and a full bathroom.  The finished basement features a billiards room with a fireplace and a wet bar, an exercise room, several utility areas, a cedar closet, and a full bathroom.  The subject dwelling's other amenities include central air conditioning, four fireplaces, a wooden deck, and a large screened-in porch.
The main level of the pool house, which has a finished living area of 1,312 square feet, has an entertainment room, a kitchen, a half bathroom, and an outside terrace area.  The basement area contains another entertainment room, a changing area, a sauna, plus one full and one half bathroom.  
The carriage house contains 900 square feet of living space.  The first level is a five-bay garage, and the second level is the living area that contains a living room, a kitchen, a bedroom, and a full bathroom.  The carriage house also includes a terrace located off of the kitchen.  Both the pool house and the carriage house are accessible to the subject dwelling via underground tunnels.
The subject property was originally listed for sale on July 9, 2012 for $4,600,000.  The sale price was lowered to $4,150,000 in October 2012 and then taken off the market at the end of 2012.  On October 16, 2013, the subject property was again listed for sale but with a lower sale price of $3,449,000.  The appellants purchased the subject property on December 6, 2013 for $3,325,000.
II. Appellants' Valuation Evidence
In support of their claim that the subject property was overvalued for the fiscal years at issue, the appellants offered the testimony and appraisal report of Emmet T. Logue, whom the Board qualified as an expert in the area of real estate valuation.    For both fiscal years at issue, Mr. Logue relied on the sales-comparison approach.  In implementing this approach, he made qualitative adjustments because, in his view, properties of this caliber do not lend themselves to a quantitative analysis.     
Fiscal Year 2015
For fiscal year 2015, Mr. Logue relied on six purportedly comparable sale properties, in addition to the sale of the subject property.  All of these properties were located in the Monument Street area of Concord and sold between December 2012 and July 2014 for sale prices that ranged from $2,775,000 to $4,680,000.  A summary of his analysis is presented in the following charts:

Mr. Logue's Comparable-Sales Analysis - Fiscal Year 2015
	Subject Property	1352 Monument Street	1437-1 Monument Street	1235-3 Monument Street	
Sale price		$2,800,000	$2,775,000	$3,450,000	
Sale date		12/01/2012	12/31/2012	7/1/2014	
Year built	1913/1988	1989	1987	1996	
Adjustments					
  Location	Excellent	  Similar	  Similar	  Similar	
  Lot size (Acres)	4.29	3.19	10.98	3.33	
    		  Similar	  Similar	  Similar	
  Building Size (SF)	8,656	9,587	11,183	7,575	
		  Superior	  Superior	  Superior	
  Bedroom/Bathroom	6/9/3	5/7/2	9/6/4	5/4/2	
  		  Inferior	  Similar	  Inferior	
  Interior Layout	Good	Poor	Good	Good	
		  Inferior	  Similar	  Similar	
  Interior quality	Outdated	Outdated	Average	Modern	
		  Similar	  Similar	  Superior	
  Basement  	Finished 	Finished	Finished	Unfinished	
		  Similar	  Similar	  Inferior	
  Garage	5-car Detached	3-car	3-car	5-car	
		  Inferior	  Similar	  Similar	
  Amenities 	Cabana
Pool
View Landscape	Cabana
Pool
Tennis court
Landscape	Cabana
Pool
Tennis Court
Paddocks	Pool	
		  Similar	  Superior	  Inferior	
Net Adjustment		Inferior	Inferior	Similar	
					


	Subject Property	75 Buttricks Hill Drive	210 Monument Farm Road	1722 Monument Street	
Sale price		$3,635,000	$4,680,000	$3,200,000	
Sale date		6/16/2014	7/26/2013	5/8/2014	
Year built	1913/1988	1993	1996	2005	
Adjustments					
  Location	Excellent	  Superior	  Similar	  Inferior	
  Lot size	4.29	12.70	5.84	2.07	
    		  Superior	  Similar	  Inferior	
  Building Size	8,656	8,250	10,977	6,825	
		  Similar	  Superior	  Inferior	
  Bedroom/Bathroom	6/9/3	5/5/2	6/9/2	5/5/1	
		  Inferior	  Similar	  Similar	
  Interior Layout	Good	Fair	Good	Good	
		  Inferior	  Similar	  Similar	
  Interior quality	Outdated	Modern	Modern	Modern	
		  Superior 	  Superior	  Superior	
  Basement  	Finished 	Finished - 2,600 sf	Finished - 3,000 sf	Unfinished	
		  Similar	  Similar	  Inferior	
  Garage	5-car Detached	4-car	3-car	7-car	
		  Similar	  Similar	  Superior	
  Amenities 	Cabana
Pool
View
Landscape	Pond Access	Pool
Tennis court
Putting green	Pool
Cabana	
		  Inferior	  Superior	  Inferior	
Net Adjustment		Superior	Superior	Inferior	
					

In arriving at his opinion of value, Mr. Logue also considered the sale of the subject property, which sold on December 6, 2013, less than one month before the relevant valuation and assessment date for fiscal year 2015, for $3,325,000.  Mr. Logue testified that buyers of properties in the Monument Street area in the $3 million-plus range had expectations that the home would have updated amenities, which the subject property lacked.  According to Mr. Logue, properties in this price range are difficult to sell unless they are modern, first-rate homes.  He further testified that although the subject property was structurally sound, it required substantial renovations including the kitchen and bathrooms and also updating the electrical, heating, and air conditioning systems.  Therefore, considering the market exposure afforded the subject property and the subject property's condition as of the relevant assessment date, Mr. Logue concluded that the recent sale of the subject property was a significant factor in arriving at his opinion of the subject property's fair market value for fiscal year 2015.   
Based on his review and analysis of his purportedly comparable properties in comparison to the subject property, which included qualitative adjustments for locational and physical differences, and also taking into consideration the subject property's recent sale price, Mr. Logue determined that the subject property's fair market value as of January 1, 2014 was $3,400,000.
Fiscal year 2016
For fiscal year 2016, Mr. Logue analyzed four sales of purportedly comparable properties that sold between December 2013 and June 2015, as well as the sale of the subject property.  His four comparable properties included three properties used in his fiscal year 2015 analysis, plus the property located at 1235-5 Monument Street. A summary of his analysis is presented in the following chart:
Mr. Logue's Comparable-Sales Analysis - Fiscal Year 2016

	Subject Property	1235-3 Monument Street	75 Buttricks Hill Drive	1235-5 Monument Street	1722 Monument Street	
Sale price	$3,325,000	$3,450,000	$3,635,000	$3,900,000	$3,200,000	
Sale date	12/6/2013	7/1/2014	6/16/2014	6/19/2015	5/8/2014	
Year built	1913/1988	1996	1993	1998	2005	
Adjustments						
  Location	Excellent	  Similar	  Superior	  Similar	  Inferior	
  Lot size (Acres)	4.29	3.33	12.70	6.31	2.07	
    		  Similar	  Superior	  Superior	  Inferior	
  Building Size (SF)	8,656	7,575	8,250	10,511	6,825	
		  Superior	  Similar	  Superior	  Inferior	
  Bedroom/Bathroom	6/9/3	5/4/2	5/5/2	5/5/1	5/5/1	
  		  Inferior	  Inferior	  Inferior	  Similar	
  Interior Layout	Good	Good	Fair	Average	Good	
		  Similar	  Inferior	  Inferior	  Similar	
  Interior quality	Outdated	Modern	Modern	Modern	Modern	
		  Superior	  Superior 	  Superior	  Superior	
  Basement  	Finished 	Unfinished	Finished -   
 2,600 sf	Finished -
 1,680 sf	Unfinished	
		  Inferior	  Similar	  Inferior	  Inferior	
  Garage	5-car Detached	5-car	4-car	3-car	7-car	
		  Similar	  Similar	  Similar	  Superior	
  Amenities 	Cabana
Pool
View Landscape	Pool	Pond Access	Stone terrace
Landscaping	Pool
Cabana	
		  Inferior	  Inferior	  Inferior	  Inferior	
Net Adjustment		Similar	Superior	Superior	Inferior	
						

Mr. Logue testified that during calendar year 2014 the appellants began renovating the subject property, including:  gutting and modernizing the kitchen, except for the appliances; partially replacing the HVAC system; wiring and modernizing the WiFi and video; and, completing maintenance and updating on the alarm and sprinkler systems and also the outdoor lighting.  Mr. Logue further testified that these improvements were factored into his qualitative adjustments between the subject property and his purportedly comparable properties.  Based on his analysis, Mr. Logue opined that the subject property's fair cash value as of January 1, 2015 was $3,600,000.
III. Appellee's Valuation Evidence
Lane Partridge testified on behalf of the assessors.  Mr. Partridge took note of the subject property's December 6, 2013 sale for $3,325,000 but maintained that this transaction was not an arm's-length sale.  He testified that the seller had "sheared off" this property from a larger parcel and was "desperate" to get rid of it, thereby suggesting that the sale did not reflect market value.  Mr. Partridge provided no evidence to support his contention of compulsion other than his bare assertion.  
To arrive at his opinion of value for the fiscal years at issue, Mr. Partridge performed a sales-comparison analysis using the same five purportedly comparable properties for both fiscal years at issue.  In contrast to Mr. Logue, Mr. Partridge used a quantitative analysis for both fiscal years at issue.  A summary of Mr. Partridge's valuation analyses for both fiscal years at issue is presented in the charts below:
Mr. Partridge's Comparable-Sales Analysis - Fiscal Year 2015

	Comparable #1	Adj.	Comparable #2	Adj.	Comparable #3	Adj.		Address	1373-4 Monument St.		1199
Monument St.		210 Monument Farm Rd.			Sale price	$4,700,000		$3,221,000		$4,680,000			Sale date	8/28/2012		9/27/2012		7/26/2013			Land size	80,000 sf		80,000 sf		80,000			Excess land	6.63 acre	-$  311,800	1.92 acre	-$   97,700	4.0 acre	-$ 115,600		Condition	Very good	 $  240,510	Very good	 $  115,910	Excellent			Grade 	10	-$  360,765	8	 $  115,910	9			Living area	6,647	-$   10,400	5,079	 $  247,995	9,262 sf	-$ 442,200		Rooms
Bed/bath	12 rooms
5/4/2	 $   40,000	12 rooms
5/3/1	 $   70,000	11 rooms
5/7/0			Style	Custom	 $   30,245	Century		Custom	 $  46,310		Garage	4-car under	-$   80,000	None		4-car attached	-$  80,000		Tennis court	None		None	`	Yes	-$  10,500		Pool	Yes/medium	 $   21,000	None	 $   50,200	Yes/medium	 $  23,400		Pool house
 living area	None	 $  428,100	None	 $  428,100
	Pool house -
 1,715 sf	-$  95,400		Detached garage/apt
 living area	Detached-garage/work area of 567 sf	 $   85,400	Barn/apartment/workout	-$  320,300	None	 $ 206,800		Net adj.		 $   82,290		 $  610,115		-$ 467,190		Adjusted sale price`	 $4,782,290		 $3,831,115		$4,212,810			

	Comparable #4	Adj.	Comparable #5	Adj.	
Address	116 Estabrook Rd.		75 Buttricks Hill Rd.		
Sale price	$5,800,000		$3,635,000		
Sale date	10/1/2013		6/17/2014		
Land size	80,000 sf		80,000 sf		
Excess land	15.06 acre	-$  940,500	10.86 ac	-$  627,200	
Condition	Very good	 $  181,100	Excellent		
Grade 	10	-$  271,725	7	 $  518,250	
Living area	5,523 sf	 $  174,735	8,250 sf	-$  183,480	
Rooms
Bed/bath	12 rooms
5/4/1	 $   50,000	12 rooms
5/3/2	 $   20,000	
Style	Custom	 $   27,615	Contemporary	 $  425,920	
Garage	3-car attached	-$   60,000	2-car attached	-$   40,000	
Tennis court	None		None		
Pool	Yes/large	 $    2,300	None	 $   50,200	
Pool house
 living area	Pool house - 
 758 sf	 $  302,000	None	 $  428,100	
Detached garage/apt
 living area	Large barn no living area	 $  164,200	None	 $  206,800	
Net adj.		-$  370,725		 $  798,590	
Adjusted sale price	 $5,429,725		 $4,433,590		


Mr. Partridge's Comparable-Sales Analysis - Fiscal Year 2016

	Comparable #1	Adj.	Comparable #2	Adj.	Comparable #3	Adj.		Address	1373-4 Monument St.		1199
Monument St.		210 Monument Farm Rd.			Sale price	$4,700,000		$3,221,000		$4,680,000			Sale date	8/28/2012		9/27/2012		7/26/2013			Land size	80,000 sf		80,000 sf		80,000			Excess land	6.63 acre	-$  319,100	1.92 acre	-$   99,800	4.0 acre	-$ 118,100		Condition	Very good	 $  235,010	Very good	 $  119,340	Excellent			Grade 	10	-$  352,515	8	 $  119,340	9			Living area	6,647	-$   10,270	5,079	 $  255,510	9,262 sf	-$ 423,440		Rooms
Bed/bath	12 rooms
5/4/2	 $   40,000	12 rooms
5/3/1	 $   70,000	11 rooms
5/7/0			Style	Custom	 $   79,764	Century		Custom	 $ 111,144		Garage	4-car under	-$   80,000	None		4-car attached	-$  80,000		Tennis court	None		None	`	Yes	-$  20,900		Pool	Yes/medium	 $   21,000	None	 $   50,200	Yes/medium	 $  23,400		Pool house
 living area	None	 $  441,000	None	 $  441,000
	Pool house -
 1,715 sf	-$ 135,000		Detached garage/apt
 living area	Detached-garage/work area of 567 sf	 $   94,900	Barn/apartment/workout	-$  382,400	None	 $ 227,600		Net adj.		 $  149,789		 $  573,190		-$ 415,296		Adjusted sale price`	 $4,849,789		 $3,794,190		$4,264,704			

	Comparable #4	Adj.	Comparable #5	Adj.	
Address	116 Estabrook Rd.		75 Buttricks Hill Rd.		
Sale price	$5,800,000		$3,635,000		
Sale date	10/1/2013		6/17/2014		
Land size	80,000 sf		80,000 sf		
Excess land	15.06 acre	-$  962,300	10.86 ac	-$  641,900	
Condition	Very good	 $  209,950	Excellent		
Grade 	10	-$  314,925	7	 $  466,320	
Living area	5,523 sf	 $  167,322	8,250 sf	-$  201,828	
Rooms
Bed/bath	12 rooms
5/4/1	 $   50,000	12 rooms
5/3/2	 $   20,000	
Style	Custom	 $   66,276	Contemporary	 $  379,456	
Garage	3-car attached	-$   60,000	2-car attached	-$   40,000	
Tennis court	None		None		
Pool	Yes/large	 $    2,300	None	 $   50,200	
Pool house
 living area	Pool house - 
 758 sf	 $  301,100	None	 $  441,000	
Detached garage/apt
living area	Large barn no living area	 $  215,800	None	 $  227,600	
Net adj.		-$  415,296		 $  700,848	
Adjusted sale price	 $5,475,523		 $4,335,848		
 
Based on his comparable-sales analyses, Mr. Partridge opined that the subject property's fair market value was $4,800,000 for both fiscal years at issue.  

IV. Board's Findings
Based on all the evidence, the Board found that the appellants met their burden of demonstrating that the subject property was overvalued for the fiscal years at issue.  
In reaching its conclusion, the Board found that the subject property's recent sale, while not conclusive, provided relevant evidence of the subject property's fair market value for the fiscal years at issue.  The assessors contended that the recent sale of the subject property was not an arm's-length transaction because the seller "sheared off" the subject property from a larger parcel and was "desperate" to get rid of it.  However, based on the subject property's length of time on and off the market, as well as the assessors' failure to introduce credible evidence of desperation or compulsion on the part of the seller, the Board found that there was insufficient evidence to support a finding of compulsion.    
The Board further found that given the subject property's lack of renovations and inferior condition in comparison to other homes in the Monument Street neighborhood and also Mr. Partridge's substantial gross adjustments, which ranged from 22% to 69%, suggesting that several of his purportedly comparable properties were not comparable at all, Mr. Logue's opinion of the subject property's overall condition and sales-comparison analyses were more reliable.  The Board further found, however, that an additional $100,000 should be added to each of Mr. Logue's values to better account for the subject property's pool house and gazebo, carriage house, and the underground tunnels connecting both structures to the main dwelling.      
	On the basis of its findings, the Board found that the subject property's fair cash value was $3,500,000 for fiscal year 2015 and $3,700,000 for fiscal year 2016.  Accordingly, the Board issued decisions for the appellants in these appeals, and granted abatements of $12,961.08, inclusive of the CPA surcharge, for fiscal year 2015 and $12,015.13, inclusive of the CPA surcharge, for fiscal year 2016.     

OPINION
The assessors are required to assess real estate at its fair cash value.  G.L. c. 59, § 38.  Fair cash value is defined as the price on which a willing seller and a willing buyer in a free and open market will agree if both of them are fully informed and under no compulsion.  Boston Gas Co. v. Assessors of Boston, 334 Mass. 549, 566 (1956).
The appellants have the burden of proving that the property has a lower value than that assessed. "'The burden of proof is upon the petitioner to make out its right as [a] matter of law to [an] abatement of the tax.'" Schlaiker v. Assessors of Great Barrington, 365 Mass. 243, 245 (1974) (quoting Judson Freight Forwarding Co. v. Commonwealth, 242 Mass. 47, 55 (1922)). "[T]he board is entitled to 'presume that the valuation made by the assessors [is] valid unless the taxpayers sustain the burden of proving the contrary.'" General Electric Co. v. Assessors of Lynn, 393 Mass. 591, 598 (1984) (quoting Schlaiker, 365 Mass. at 245).
In appeals before this Board, a taxpayer "'may present persuasive evidence of overvaluation either by exposing flaws or errors in the assessors' method of valuation, or by introducing affirmative evidence of value which undermines the assessors' valuation.'"  General Electric Co., 393 Mass. at 600 (quoting Donlon v. Assessors of Holliston, 389 Mass. 848, 855 (1983)). 
In the present appeals, the appellants contended that the subject property was overvalued.  They first argued that the price that they paid on December 6, 2013, less than one month before the relevant valuation and assessment date for fiscal year 2015, reflected its fair market value more accurately than did the subject assessments.  Usually, the actual sale of the subject property itself is "ʽvery strong evidence of fair market value, for [it] represent[s] what a buyer has been willing to pay to a seller for [the property under appeal].'"  New Boston Garden Corp. v. Assessors of Boston, 383 Mass. 456, 469 (1981) (quoting First Nat'l Stores, Inc. v. Assessors of Somerville, 358 Mass. 554, 560 (1971)).  See also Kane v. Assessors of Topsfield, Mass. ATB Findings of Fact and Reports 2000-409, 411 (finding that a sale of the subject property three months before the relevant valuation and assessment date was the best evidence of the subject property's fair cash value absent any evidence of compulsion).  
However, when there is compulsion, the sale of the subject property is not the best indication of fair market value.  The Board has previously found that the sale of a subject property by a highly motivated seller did not qualify as an arm's-length sale and thus should be excluded from a comparable-sales analysis.  Bolduc v. Assessors of Norfolk, Mass. ATB Findings of Fact and Reports 2012-1163, 1172 (finding that relocation assistance provided by the seller's employer, together with the need of the seller to relocate for employment purposes, "provided [the seller] with motivation to accept less than fair market value for the subject property").  More recently, the Board found that where the assessors failed to prove that the taxpayer felt "any pressure" to sell and that the sale of the subject property was not arm's length, the sale price was "relevant in the determination of fair cash value."  Lorusso v. Assessors of Concord, Mass. ATB Findings of Fact and Reports 2016-257, 276.   
In the present appeals, the assessors contended that the recent sale of the subject property was not an arm's-length transaction because the seller "sheared off" the subject property from a larger parcel and was "desperate" to get rid of it.  However, based on the subject property's length of time on and off the market, as well as the assessors' failure to introduce credible evidence of desperation or compulsion on the part of the seller, the Board found that there was insufficient evidence to support a finding of compulsion.    
However, while the Board found the sale of the subject property to be relevant evidence of its fair market value, the Board is also guided by the principle that a "single sale does not necessarily reflect market value."  Appraisal Institute, The Appraisal of Real Estate 317 (13th ed. 2008).   The Board thus looked beyond the sale of the subject property to sales of other comparable property in the relevant market area.  "[S]ales of property usually furnish strong evidence of market value, provided they are arm's-length transactions and thus fairly represent what a buyer has been willing to pay for the property to a willing seller."  Foxboro Associates v. Assessors of Foxborough, 385 Mass. 679, 682 (1982).  
Sales of comparable realty in the same geographic area and within a reasonable time of the assessment date contain credible data and information for determining the value of the property at issue.  Graham v. Assessors of West Tisbury, Mass. ATB Findings of Fact and Reports 2007-321, 400 (citing McCabe v. Chelsea, 265 Mass. 494, 496 (1929)), aff'd, 73 Mass. App. Ct. 1107 (2008).  When comparable sales are used, however, allowance must be made for various factors that would otherwise cause disparities in the comparable prices.  See Beach Street Realty LLC v. Assessors of Quincy, Mass. ATB Findings of Fact and Reports 2014-1155, 1168.  Appraisers generally employ both qualitative and quantitative techniques to estimate the relative significance of these factors.  The Appraisal of Real Estate at 307.
Properties are "comparable" when they share "fundamental similarities" with the subject property, including age, location and size.  See Lattuca v. Robsham, 442 Mass. 205, 216 (2004).  "[B]asic comparability is established upon considering the general character of the properties."  New Boston Garden Corp., 383 Mass. at 470.  "Once basic comparability is established, it is then necessary to make adjustments for the differences, looking primarily to the relative quality of the properties, to develop a market indicator of value."  Id. 
In the present appeals, the Board found credible Mr. Logue's testimony that Monument Street was a prestigious and valuable neighborhood in Concord, and that properties priced over $3 million are difficult to sell unless they are modern, first-rate houses, which the subject property was not due to its condition on the relevant assessment dates.  Further, the Board found that Mr. Logue's testimony regarding the overall condition of the house was reliable.  The Board also found that Mr. Logue's qualitative sales-comparison analyses were more reliable than Mr. Partridge's quantitative analyses, which lacked explanation.  Moreover, Mr. Partridge's gross adjustments ranged from 22% to 69% suggesting that several of his purportedly comparable properties were not comparable at all.  If the amount of gross adjustments applied to each purportedly comparable property is substantial, the logical conclusion is that these properties are simply not comparable to the subject property.  See The May Dept. Store Co. v. Assessors of Newton, Mass. ATB Findings of Fact and Reports 2009-153, 191 ("[T]he Board questioned the comparability of some of [the real estate valuation expert's] purportedly comparable properties to the subject property because of the amount of the gross adjustments that [he] made to them."); The Trustee of the Charles Cotesworth Pinckney Trust v. Assessors of West Tisbury, Mass. ATB Findings of Fact and Reports 2007-621, 630-31 (noting that significant adjustments "raise serious questions regarding initial comparability"); see also The Appraisal of Real Estate at 312-13. 

Based on the evidence presented, the Board found and ruled that the fair market value of the subject property was $3,500,000 for fiscal year 2015 and $3,700,000 for fiscal year 2016.  Accordingly, the Board issued decisions for the appellant in these appeals and granted abatements of $12,961.08, inclusive of the CPA surcharge, for fiscal year 2015 and $12,015.13, inclusive of the CPA surcharge, for fiscal year 2016.     
    
					    THE APPELLATE TAX BOARD



				  	By: ________________________________
				         Thomas W. Hammond, Jr., Chairman




A true copy,


Attest: ____________________________
	    Clerk of the Board

 This amount does not include the Community Preservation Act ("CPA") surcharge of $929.24.
 This amount does not include the CPA surcharge of $950.12.

ATB 2017-456