Note: Decisions of a three-justice panel are not to be considered as precedent before any tribunal. 

ENTRY ORDER

SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2010-146 

JANUARY TERM, 2011 

Judith Pizzagalli } APPEALED FROM: 

} 

 v. } 

} 

Property Valuation and Review 

Division 

} 

Town of Shelburne } DOCKET NO. PVR 2008-148 

 

In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter: 

The Town of Shelburne appeals from the state appraiser’s assessment of property owned 

by taxpayer Judith Pizzagalli. We affirm. 

The property at issue consists of two lots totaling 20.7 acres with 1275 feet of frontage on 

Lake Champlain. There are two single-family dwellings on the property, one that contains 5213 

square feet of gross living area (GLA) and the other that contains 1228 square feet of GLA. 

There is also a 1472 square foot detached barn. The property is well landscaped, and it includes 

a tennis court and private rocky beach. In 2007-2008, the Town conducted a town-wide 

reappraisal, and its asssessor set the fair market value (FMV) of the subject property at 

$5,824,100 as of April 1, 2008. Taxpayer appealed to the Board of Civil Authority, which 

reduced the FMV to $5,414,775. Taxpayer then appealed to the state appraiser, which set the 

FMV at $4,638,200. 

In reaching his conclusion, the appraiser made the following findings. Both parties 

offered the sales of comparable properties to support their respective positions as to FMV. Both 

cited the same sale of a nearby property, the Harbor Road property, which sold for $3,889,000 in 

September 2007. The appraiser found that, overall, this property was inferior to the subject 

property. Among other things, it had less GLA, lake frontage, and acreage. Based on these and 

other differences, the Town adjusted the sales price for this property to $6,197,500. Taxpayer 

adjusted the sales price to $5,040,400. “Using the most convincing evidence of record when 

comparing the sale with the [subject property],” the appraiser found the adjusted sales price of 

the Harbor Road property to be $6,133,800. The appraiser engaged in a similar analysis with the 

other proffered comparables. 

In doing so, he rejected several of the comparables identified by the Town. One of these 

was a property located approximately four miles from the subject property, the Beach Road 

property, which sold for $2,338,500 in May 2008. The appraiser found that this property had 

less GLA, lake frontage, and acreage than the subject property, and overall, it was inferior to the 

subject property. He found the adjusted sales price to be $5,017,200, which resulted in a net 

adjustment that was greater than the sales price, and net and gross adjustment ratios that were 
 2

well over 100%. The appraiser stated that ratios above 100% showed a complete lack of 

comparability, and thus, he did not consider this sale in reaching his conclusion. 

The appraiser found that four of the proffered comparable sale properties provided the 

most reliable estimate of FMV for the subject property. The estimates of FMV for these four 

sales ranged from $4,388,400 to $6,133,800, with a median value of $4,638,200. The appraiser 

found that the median value was the best estimate of FMV for the subject property on April 1, 

2008, and he thus adopted this value for purposes of the Town’s grand list. This appeal by the 

Town followed. 

The Town first argues that the appraiser failed to provide sufficient findings of fact to 

substantiate his determinations of the value of the comparable properties. It complains that the 

appraiser did not explain which specific factors he adjusted for each property; the amount of 

adjustment for each factor; or the basis for the adjustment. The Town cites Saufroy v. Town of 

Danville, 148 Vt. 624 (1987), as support for its argument. The Town also argues that the 

appraiser erred by failing to use one of the comparable properties it proffered. It maintains that 

the appraiser acted arbitrarily in excluding this property based on the fact that the adjustments 

exceeded the sales price. It points to another case decided by the appraiser, Lisman v. Town of 

Shelburne, No. 2010-251 (Vt. Dec. 8, 2010) (unpub. mem.), where the appraiser used a 

comparable property that had a net adjustment ratio of 102.5%. Finally, the Town asserts that 

the appraiser failed to provide sufficient findings of fact to justify using the median value of the 

comparable properties to arrive at the subject property’s FMV. 

On review, we defer to the appraiser’s decision. Garilli v. Town of Waitsfield, 2008 VT 

91, ¶ 9, 184 Vt. 594. “Where the record contains some basis in evidence for the state appraiser’s 

valuation, the appellant bears the burden of demonstrating that the exercise of discretion was 

clearly erroneous.” State Hous. Auth. v. Town of Northfield, 2007 VT 63, ¶ 5, 182 Vt. 90 

(quotation omitted). 

The arguments raised by the Town are essentially the same as those that we considered 

and rejected in Lisman, No. 2010-251, slip op. at 1-2. As in that case, the appraiser here 

provided sufficient grounds for his decision, and we are not “left to speculate on how the Board 

reached its conclusion on fair market value.” Saufroy, 148 Vt. at 626. This case is unlike 

Saufroy where the board of appraisers set the fair market value of a parcel of property at a value 

identical to that of the taxpayers’ lone comparable, despite finding “very significant differences 

between [the] taxpayers’ property and the comparable property.” Id. at 625-26. The board in 

Saufroy offered no “explanation how these differences cancel out so that the fair market values 

are identical.” Id. at 626. Here, by contrast, the appraiser specifically indicated how each of the 

proposed comparables differed from the subject property, and he then determined a value for the 

comparables based on the stated differences. We found this approach sufficient in Lisman to 

show how the appraiser reached his conclusion and to allow for review by this Court. Id. at 2. 

We reach a similar conclusion here. 

We similarly find no abuse of discretion in the appraiser’s rejection of one of the Town’s 

comparables, the Beach Road property. See Sondergeld v. Town of Hubbardton, 150 Vt. 565, 

572 (1988) (stating that decision to use certain property as comparable sale “is an evidentiary 

question which rests solely within the trier’s discretion”). The appraiser found that: this property 
 3

had less GLA, lake frontage, and acreage than the subject property; did not have a guest house or 

detached barn; had inferior construction quality; and overall was inferior to the subject property. 

The Town adjusted the actual sales price of this property—$2,338,500—to $5,327,500. The 

appraiser found that the adjusted price should be $5,017,200, which resulted in net and gross 

adjustment ratios of over 100%. Although, as the Town points out, the Harbor Road sale 

similarly had less GLA, lake frontage, and acreage than the subject property, its net adjustment 

ratio did not exceed 100%. It was within the appraiser’s discretion to conclude that when the 

value of the adjustments to a property exceeds the sales price of that property, it is not a useful 

comparable. The fact that the appraiser, in a different case, considered a comparable with 

adjustments of 102.5% of the sales price does not demonstrate that the appraiser abused his 

discretion here. See Lisman, No. 2010-251, slip op. at 2 (reaching similar conclusion). 

Finally, the Town argues that the appraiser abused his discretion by using the median 

value of the comparables without explaining why he chose this approach over any other method. 

As we stated in Lisman, “[t]here is no requirement that the state appraiser take the average rather 

than the median of comparable properties—or either one for that matter.” Id. The value of the 

comparables here ranged from $4,388,400 to $6,133,800. Given this wide range, and “the fact 

that the median represents the midpoint among values,” id. at 3, the appraiser acted within his 

discretion in relying on this means of valuation. His approach was reasonable, and he was not 

obligated to justify his decision to apply this method. Contrary to the Town’s assertion, we are 

not left to speculate how the appraiser reached his conclusion as to FMV, and we find no error in 

the appraiser’s decision. 

Affirmed. 

BY THE COURT: 

_______________________________________ 

Paul L. Reiber, Chief Justice 

_______________________________________ 

Denise R. Johnson, Associate Justice 

_______________________________________ 

Marilyn S. Skoglund, Associate Justice