DOCKET NO: HHD—CV~18~6087056—S
`
`TLOA ACQUISITIONS LLC-SERIES 1
`
`VS
`
`:
`
`:
`
`:
`
`SUPERIOR COURT
`
`JD. OF HARTFORD
`
`AT HARTFORD
`
`DESHAZZER & GRANT, LLC, ET AL
`
`: March 21, 2018
`
`MOTION FOR JUDGMENT OF STRICT FORECLOSURE AND
`
`FINDING OF ENTITLEMENT TO POSSESSION
`
`The Plaintiff hereby moves that a Judgment of Strict Foreclosure be entered in the
`
`above«captioned matter and that the court make a finding that the Plaintiff is entitled to
`
`possession of the subject premises upon title to the subject premises vesting in Plaintiff
`
`PLAINTIFF,
`
`By /s/102078
`Gary J. Greene, Esq.
`Greene Law, PC
`
`Its Attorney
`1 1 Talcott Notch Road
`
`Farmington, CT 06032
`Juris No: 428354
`
`ORAL ARGUMENT IS REQUESTED
`TESTIMONY IS REQUIRED
`
`THIS IS AN ATTEMPT TO COLLECT A DEBT AND ANY INFORMATION
`
`OBTAINED WILL BE USE FOR THAT PURPOSE.
`
`1
`
`I 11 Talcott Notch Road E Farmington, CT 06032
`Greene Law, P.C.
`Tel: 860-676-1336 1 Fax: 850-676-2250 I E—Service: service@greene|awpc.com
`
`

`

`CERTIFICATION
`
`I hereby certify that a copy of the above was mailed or electronically delivered on this
`
`21St day of March 2018 to all counsel and self-represented parties of record and that written
`
`consent for electronic delivery was received from all counsel and se1f~represented parties of
`
`record who were electronically served:
`
`Hartford Corporation Counsel
`550 Main Street
`
`Hartford, CT 06103
`
`/S/ 1 020 78
`
`Gary J. Greene
`Commissioner of Superior Court
`
`2
`
`E 11 Talcott Notch Road | Farmington, CT 06032
`Greene Law, P.C.
`Tel: 860—676—1336 [ Fax: 860—676—2250 | E-Service: service@greenelawpc.com
`
`

`

`Appraisal: 161 White Street, Hartford. CT / 2,172 SF Commercial Buiiding
`
`Page 1 of 26
`
`VALUATIQN RESEARCH CQUNSTEMNG
`
`P.O.Box1460
`V: 800.737.4416 | Cell: 860.841.9881
`
`E: BJC-BJVaiuationResearchCounseling.com
`Grantham. NH 03753
`
`March 8, 2018
`
`Diane Bryand
`Greene Law, PC.
`1 i Talcott Notch Road
`Farmington, CT 06032
`
`Re:
`
`161 WHiTE STREET. HARTFORD, CT I 2,} 72 SF COMMERCIAL BUILDING
`
`Ms. Bryand:
`
`We have analyzed the above-captioned properly for the purpose of estimating its market value in fee simple as of
`
`March 6, 2018. We have prepared an Appraisal Report as defined by the Appraisal Standards Board in Standard 22 of
`
`the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (2018].
`
`The subject property is a 2,172 SF commercial building
`
`built in 1940. It has a wood frame, aluminum siding and
`
`an asphalt shingle roof. Although the subiect appears
`
`to have been unoccupied for the last few years, it was
`
`market seems to have improved somewhat since that
`
`fast used as a florist shop/greenhouse. it appears to be
`
`in fair overall condition.
`
`it's on 0.12 acres that slopes
`
`down gently from street grade. There is a paved
`
`parking area on the west side of the building. However
`
`it
`
`is narrow and deep making it rather difficult
`
`to
`
`maneuver. The subject
`
`last sold in February 2014 for
`
`$42,000 or $19.34/SF.
`
`it does not appear any work has
`
`been done to the subject since that time. However the
`
`time. The subject has not been listed in the MLS since it
`last sold in 2014. Conclusions are as follows:
`
`
`CONCLUSEONS
`
`Effective Date of Value:
`Estimated Exposure Time / Marketing Time:
`MARKET VALUE
`
`March 6, 2018
`7 - 12 Months / 7 - 12 Months
`$20,000
`Land:
`§36 000
`Building:
`TOTAL:
`$56,000
`
`
`Sincerely.
`' fl, 7
`fly”? “7/ (2
`Barry J. Cunningham, PhD, MAI
`CT Certified General Appraiser. RCG.!41
`
`”2'1.“ J 42”,
`Larry Rabago
`CT Certified Residential Appraiser. RCR.1742
`
`ii
`.
`
`
`\5.-’\1_l 1,3 l‘ION Rio-1% RC} 1 Cf‘JUNstLJNG
`
`

`

`Appraisat: tét White Street, Hartford. CT / 2, t 72 SF Commercial Building
`
`Page 2 of 26
`
`
`
`Letter of Transmittal ...................................................................................................................................................................... 1
`
`Table of Contents ......................................................................................................................................................................... 2
`
`Photographs of the Subject Property .........................................................................................................................................3
`
`Introduction & Summary Conctusions ........................................................................................................................................4
`
`Introduction & Scope of Wort: .....................................................................................................................................................5
`
`Site Description & Analysis .......................................................................................................................................................... 6
`
`Improvement Description s Analysis .......................................................................................................................................... 7
`
`Zoning Description ........................................................................................................................................................................ 8
`
`Assessment Data .......................................................................................................................................................................... 9
`
`Market Description & Analysts ..................................................................................................................................................... 9
`
`Highest & Best Use. Exposure Time, and Methodotogy .......................................................................................................... t
`
`l
`
`Cost Approach ........................................................................................................................................................................ n/a
`
`Soles Comparison Approach .................................................................................................................................................... 12
`
`income Capitalization Approach ............................................................................................................................................ 16
`
`Reconciliation and Final Value Estimate ................................................................................................................................. l8
`
`Certification & Statement of Assumptions and Limiting Conditions .................................................................................... l9
`
`Pertinent Definitions ....................................................................................................................................................................20
`
`Quatificattons of the Appraiser .................................................................................................................................................21
`
`Addenda — Deed ........................................................................................................................................................................ 22
`
`Addenda — 2014 MLS Listing ...................................................................................................................................................... 24
`
`
`\r',-'\.l,il,-"\ t lffii‘w‘ RISIQ’KRYLI] Ct'fiiiNfii't...tN{;
`
`

`

`Approisoi: 161 Whiie Sireei, Hartford, CT / 2. i 72 SF Commercial Bu‘
`
`Page 3 of 26
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Subjeci ~ Front/Side View
`
`Subjeci ~ Rear View
`
`Sireei View w Looking Eosi
`
`Street View ~ Looking Wesi
`
`
`
`
`VA Li M i it.
`RIM ’XRCI I C. ._3I_i:'\q_\.i;i_]i\i(3
`
`

`

`Appraisal:
`
`iéi White Street. Hartford. CT / 2,172 SF Commercial Buiiding
`
`Page 4 of 26
`
`_ 34(3dedeC77T06717 1.4 .. .
`Hartford 77
`
`..
`
`..
`
`.. ..... ......
`
`
`
` Greene Law, PC.
`161 White Street
`
`Aadtéssistréét
`77
`7 Address-77Town
`Address-_7C__ounty7_
`
`
`
`CommonNorrie
`
`
` 188777237;27873777
`Assessor tD
`
`_
`volume 68637 Page 717737277 Hartford5 Lanai Records
`7
`Deshozzer & Grant. LLC
`
`_
`
`Commercial building
`March 6. 2018
`
`7
`
`7
`
`Legal Reference
`OwnerEntityfl
`Property Type.-
`Ettective Date of Value
`Personal Property
`State HistoryAnalyzed
`
`'
`
`'
`
`7 M
`
`
`
`
`77 The subject last sold in February 2014 for $42,000 or $t 9.34/Si“. Prior to that it was
`
`-
`farecIOSed in February 2014
`arketing t7-7Iis7tory_'._
`7Th77e777subjecthas "not been listedI7r7‘i the MEs77in7c7eiticiéisold in270i47.77
`
`
`77Fee7 Simple Estate
`interest7Appraisect
`
`
`777Theproblem tobe solved and thepurposeofthis appraisati7is7to7research and77
`Purpose7778; Problem identification
`_
`.
`
`7 report my opinion of market value consistent with the ptoperty rights stated
`7
`7
`7
`7
`
`above and its relevant definition”77.6.7? addendal-
`Litigation
`
`777. Client and assigns
`
`Appraisers competent to appraise.
`
`
`
`
`7 acres that stapes down gently from street grade with minimal offstreetparking
`_ 77|\77]7Q77n7e77 .. .....
`
`
`"'liygiéifiéiiéai.c9ndit'ibiif
`Extioproirioiy Assumption 7
`7
`7-
`7
`7
`7 ”the subject's condition is an Extraordinary Assumption based on an exterior
`
`7
`
`
`7
`
`EnVIronmental
`.
`
`
`ConSIderation
`
`
`7
`7
`7
`I,
`it or Ilt environmental site survey or similar report reveal an issue,
`I reserve the
`
`
`
`right to alter my opinion of value accordingly. 7 '
`
`
`" review We: -
`"Approach to Value
`77
`77
`77
`
`77
`Natdeveloped77 777777777fi77fi777fi777777
`7N/7A777
`77
`CostApproach
`77S__a777ates Comparison Approach 7
`7lncomeCapitalization Approach 7777 $56,000
`77F_‘i7n_c7_i_l7Conciuaon at“Value
`
`No personal property
`
`--
`
`'
`
`7
`
`it has a
`The subject property is a 2,l72 SF commercial building buitt in i940.
`wood frame. aluminum siding and an asphalt shingle roof. Although the subject
`
`appears to have been unoccupied tor the last few years. it was last used as a
`
`florist shop/greenhouse. it appears to be in fair overall condition. It's on 0.12
`
`Intended Use-77.
`
`intended-7-U7se7_rs7
`77 7__
`Competency Prowsion
`Brief PropertyDescription 7
`7
`7
`7
`
`
`
`inspection and MLS data. it this assumption is found to be incorrect, we reserve
`the right to alter our opinion.
`
`This appraiser did not observe any environmental contamination on the
`property. However. I am not an expert in that field. Shoutd a subsequent Phase
`
`
`
`$56,000
`
`7
`
`77
`
`7
`
`7
`
`7
`
`7
`
`7
`
`77
`
`77 $25.78
`
`$25.78
`
`
`\"Atl i.-“\t INN REE/ARCH (I‘ll ti‘xifitiUNG
`
`

`

`Appraisai: iéi White Street. Hartford, CT / 2, i72 SF Commercial Building
`
`Page 5 of 26
`
`
` Scope of.\_N_o_rl< _
`_
`_
`_
`_
`_
`.
`_.
`- The scope of work used in preparing this appraisal IS included throughout this
`I
`II
`I
`II
`I
`I
`I
`I
`'- document in the various descriptions and analysis. The failawing bullet points
`' give a genera: overview:
`-
`Physical attributes of the subiect were researched to assess what
`
`is
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`physically possible for the site and improvements. The property was last
`
`inspected by this appraiser 03—06—2038 [exterior]. Gross building area taken
`from town records and cross referenced with MLS records.
`
`-
`
`Pubiic
`
`records were researched regarding zoning, Eegal
`
`interests,
`
`easements,
`
`covenants,
`
`restrictions,
`
`and
`
`other
`
`aspects
`
`of
`
`legal
`
`permissibility.
`
`'
`
`-
`
`A market analysis was done to assess the subject's place in the market and
`
`its financial feasibility.
`
`_
`
`'
`
`.
`
`0
`
`.
`
`A conclusion of highest and best use was made. as—vacant and as—
`
`improved consistent with what is physically possible,
`
`legally permissible,
`
`financially feasible, and maximaliy productive.
`Analysis was made to determine the appropriate approaches to value to
`
`be used (cost, sates, and income approaches) and these approaches
`
`were developed.
`
`Prepared/deiivered appraisai
`
`consistent with Uniform Standards of
`
`Professional Appraisal Practice {2018}.
`
`\":"\l.,il.’\l EON RESEARCH C1731 INSLLiNG
`
`

`

`Appraisal: 16] White Street, Hartford, CT / 2, i 72 SF Commercial Building
`
`Page 6 of 26
`
`Frontage
`
`' 0.12 Acres
`' 60.3 feet (per deed]
`
` _
`I Slopes down gentéy from street grade.
`
`
`Eflhapur;
`
`-.....
`
`. —R_ecl_angu|ar ....
`
`
`.. Utllmeswu . .-_....
`Watersewergaselectricrtycable release;'iéiéeaa'ae; W
`
`
`FloodZoneXMap#09003CO502FDated9/26/08 W W
`
`"
`
`”
`
`__ "NBHé‘EfiéMWw
`.. Sidewalks and paved parking area supporting a 2,172 SF commercial building.
`
`Iii-Due to the long and narrow configuration of
`maneuverability is difficult and quite limited.
`
`the paved parking area,
`
`_
`.. Selling aside legal and economic factors. there is no excess land available:
`:_
`that is, no land that cauld be sold off because it is not needed to support the
`improvements. And there is no surplus land available. Any impact on value is
`-
`- considered in the zoning and market analysis sections and summarized in the
`
`1
`
`highest and best use section.
`
`'"s'éb.0‘0'0”—'§ir§§6tfie meagerirra'r'egéarah orgaségifimé’eéa 'd aamzsrmeaéa’ '
`in our file memorandum.
`
`Prisca Zoném'
`wetlands f? _ __
`.
`5.3% lrliplgkiéliile'lslgj
`
`Important/Elevant
`"
`
`
`_
`
`. warps/mess Wild
`'
`I
`I
`II
`I
`I
`'
`I
`I
`I
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`\","\l.,1l,-'\'I'll'.‘)l‘\“ Rlelsr'UsCl-l C01 lNSl-HNC
`
`

`

`
`
`Appraisal: 161 White Street, Hartford, CT I 2,172 SF Commerciot Building Page 7 of 26
`
`
`
` -fit irmaoca -' .zm 1,2572
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2mm;
`m1
`tm..-
`-
`
`.15
`o
`-' Sang-am --.'a.155
`
`Building Sketch
`
`.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`'Eit’roor'airiorvA'é'éfiérnotiEr?"_"'
`I
`I'
`I
`I
`'
`'
`I
`
`I
`
`I
`
`;
`
`remarks from that time show the subject in fair overoli condition and indicate
`water/freeze domoge‘ There does not appear to have been any work done to
`
`the subject since that time.
`
`'fii'é'éiiiijééf‘s tni'éribfébh'ciitié'riié an exiresidinaiyxesmpiion. tithis'd'ss'umbtién '
`is found to be incorrect, we reserve the right to utter our opinion.
`
`.
`
`W \
`
`‘ {\Lt 1A1 SUN RISLARCH C(‘>li?\l.§1.'l.,il\5(3
`
`
`""érofi'é'riy 19.5.3 '
`i
`Common Norrie
`Grjosshififivildino A???
`
`.
`
`'...
`
`..
`
`' "
`'
`""EcSEfimétEtéEtahi'iEi'ih'é" '
`. Wm? M w
`......__ .____.____._ __.._ WW .. W lWWWWWWWWWW WW W W, WWW
`
`2.1 7f SF
`78 Years w Built in 1940
`
`Fair ~« Based on on exterior inspection and MLS photos/remarks
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-
`'_
`-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ibtéfidr Wdlls I'
`Calling Finish.
`
`" F1651 Covering?
`
`_ Electrical
`__ 'é’diéifiéfii
`I
`I'
`I
`'
`
`Functionot Us:
`HVAc f .-
`'- "
`
`Comments _
`
`1
`
`Asphalt Shingle
`
`I Aluminum Siding
`N Plate Glass
`
`Unknown _ Exterior inspection
`_ Urtknovtrn _Extenormspection .. _ ..._...... ._
`
`"‘1".
`’
`
`'_ Wuniinovv’r'iCEktér’io'r'ihgbéétiofim
`’Uirk'novvn’l’fiitériorihsfiébiiofim
`
`mi 1/1328 "3 F7 'ririis'riéd": " '36s'éd'”SHWKHEE'"66616?"fiiiis; ' i; of 15%} ' EEJESiiiVWiiH “Ha"
`
`contributory value.
`
`... Average
`
`the subject woé sold out of torecfiosure in September 2014. MLS photos and
`
` "1' Gas fired warm air heot. No air conditioning.
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`i6] White Street, Hartford, CT I 2,172 SF Commercial BuildingAppraisal: Page 8 of 26
`
`
` Hartford Zoning Map. _'
`.-
`
`
`
`
`
`Zeniingfiistrict 7' 3.
`”zsiii‘rjig jisi'siiicsirpesciipiisn _
`I
`I
`I
`I
`i" I'
`I'
`H
`
`_
`
`"
`
`
`
`.
`
`"’iigiiii‘iiisa"Ufs'iei‘f--
`II
`I
`II
`
`_
`I
`
`'
`
`' Ground floor storefronts contain a mix of retail and service uses, while upper
`stories may include office and residential uses.
`
`" 2‘
`
`. "'"F'é‘r'fii iii'éa'UEéE _E}?"{He"ilfi's"1'i""'cii§i'iiéi"'i'rié'iiiiiié: " iiéiéisf 'obaii’r’fiéfiis 'r'iéiéitbciiiioéa"
`
`retail, adult day care and eating places. Uses permitted on upper stories
`include: one,
`two,
`three and multi—famiiy dwellings and office uses. Uses
`
`beekeeping, parks, convenience stores, neighborhood service establishments,
`
`-
`
`_
`
`_
`
`.
`
`,
`
`,
`
`, Noflminimum-
`
`_ ____..___..___ _
`
`__.._____
`
`_. 603feet
`
`_.
`
`_
`
`., , 2'Sitories /4Siories
`
`...__.___.__._.
`
`_§Story __
`
`_
`
`54OOSF __ . .
`
`.
`
`.
`
`..
`
`90%
`
`..
`
`.
`
`Within2feet of building-line
`No minimum
`
`Steet
`
`..
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`Varies with use.
`. N/A
`._
`
`.
`
`'
`
`H
`
`..
`
`"
`I
`
`.
`
`_.
`
`.
`
`I
`
`.. ....
`
`..
`
`..
`
`....
`
`40%t+/-t
`
`'
`
`.
`
`' Not measured
`Not measured
`
`Not measured
`
`2 _ 3 cars
`"Legal, hon-Conforming . ..
`
`. ..
`
`The MSW] districts are located along historic main roads and neighborhood
`nodes. The MS—i district is characterized by low scale storefront buildings and
`houses converted to commercial use. ail fronting pedestrian friendly sidewalks.
`
`
`
`,,
`' rmfififihfigfi
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`' permitted subject to use~specific conditions include: community gardens, honey
`
`
` child day care. private clubs and craftsmen studios.
`
`Zoning Regulations No minimum
` Subject Parameters
`
`Wtfiiitfifi?Mdifiufifiéfiifif.
`Max! iiiqg beagles" xi
`_
`MiriL'Fio'his'éébdcig'"
`MinSIdeSetback
`M-iQ-.:IR:e-GrSié-TbQ-Ck:-_I i2 -.
`'-
`"
`gutting Requrremeni
`:I
`I
`" "conformity "
`
`Excess/Surplusi._ _
`
`'
`'
`d '
`'
`I
`
`
`
`
`“There is no ésieéigiaiia'; 'th'otwisf'no"tend-that'couuloqbewsold'oif'b'ecause it’i’s not
`'. needed to support the improvements. Aiso. there is no surplus land available to
`
`expand the existing improvements.
`_
`_
`_
`_
`_
`_
`_
`_
`iron—cisiiiéiiiiifié”"a;""ii"'aaé's”iisi”i'~'nééi"“i'iié”
`'"6:}h3_ii€i=5ii'is/_Lég'dji“iieim'isjsfibiiiiy (The subject is considered legal,
`"
`I
`'
`'
`"
`"
`”I
`'
`'
`" "
`minimum height requirement for the MS-l district.
`
`
`\J'i‘i Li lx’s't
`it"T-‘N R.[:f§i;.-’\RCI I COUNSLLINC
`
`

`

`Appraisal: To] White Street. Hartford. CT / 2,172 SF Commercial Building
`
`Page 9 of 26
`
`
`
`The subject’s assessment,
`
`implied market value, and taxes are predicted on the jurisdiction-wide revaluation
`
`completed tor Grand List 2016 and outlined as follows:
`
`$57,470
`
` Current Assessment .' '
`
`$57,470
`{Current/Assessment. '-:
`
`_.
`70%
`.
`.
`..
`
`
`assessesstirs; .2}:
`74.29
`_
`'
`Tax (Milt) Rate: __ '
`'
`
`
`
`
`13_ $4,269
`.' f 3': $82,100
`rrfiplséa' Assesses} verse -
`Tat-res _j-_ .. "
`
`
`
`" $37.80
`I
`I
`H
`I
`'
`$1.97
`. Assessor Value/S F:
`Taxes roér. 3.F I
`
`
`
`"defiance
`'Eit'ectivé'boteotvolueff'"
`
`
`
`career a; 2621’
`"bars "or" sstrs'svaiossssj‘. "
`_
`.. ..
`.. . ..
`October 11-2016 ..
`' beast Lestléévatuatlofi " .
`
`
`
`
`
`-
`
`'
`
`
`
`This analysis 1's based on the premise that real property value is tied to the services the property provides and that a study
`
`of the market for those services will reveal influences on the value of the real property. The market analysis is used in two
`
`parts of the appraisal: the highest and best use and the application of the approaches to value (Fanning. Market
`
`Analysis for Real Estate, 2005. p. 5). The steps are as follows:
`
`i. Analyze property productivity
`
`or.
`
`Identify the physical and legal attributes at the
`
`property.
`
`"the subiect is a 2,!72 SF commercial buitding built in 1940.
`
`I
`
`it's an 0.12 acres with minimal off—street parking. Although
`it appears to have been vacant for the last few years. the
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`The most likely buyers/users of the property
`
`subject
`
`was most
`
`recentty
`
`used
`
`as
`
`a
`
`florist
`
`The demographics of the immediate area
`
`shop/greenhouse. Legally.
`
`it
`
`is considered legal, non-
`
`2. Delineate the market area/competitive market area
`a. Broader overview of the market
`
`conforming. The most likety buyer/user would be an owner
`
`acoupant. Demographicaliy, Hartford (the state capital] is
`
`b. Anatysis of the subject in the market
`
`centrally located in Connecticut. Hartford is bisected by
`
`3. Conclusions about likely buyers 3. the projections they
`
`interstate 84 running east and west and Interstate 9t
`
`make
`
`5 running north and south. Statistics comparing the City of
`
`Hartford to Hartford County and the State of Connecticut
`are outtined below.
`
`Market Area Demographics
`
`City of Hartford
`Hartford County
`State of Connecticut
`
`Square Mites:
`Population [2015):
`Population Density (#r'Sa. Mi]:
`
`17
`124,?95
`7,150
`
`735
`896,943
`1229
`
`4342
`3,593,222
`742
`
`$270,500
`$236,400
`$161,400
`Median Home Price [2015)
`$70,331
`$66,395
`$30,530
`Med. Household inc. l20l5]:
`10.5%
`113%
`334%
`Poverty Rate (20i5):
`
`Unemployment Rate (20i 5): 5.7% IO.6% 5.9%
`
`
`
`
`\r'.»’\L.1ir‘\ ] “TIN R153 At{Cit C01 ii‘vSMJNC
`
`

`

`Appraisal:
`
`16% White Street, Hartford, CT / 2.172 SF Commercial Building
`
`Page 10 of 26
`
`
`Location Map
`
`.- rmmingié“ We“ '
`
`
`
`
`
`Ian-e-anemia"
`
`._ game-{sq
`
`first? and
`._ttr”i:itrlt?_y
`
`_
`
`'
`
`.
`
`Market Description .-
`
`.
`
`The subject is tocated about 2.5 miles south of the downtown area in Hartford‘s South West neighborhood. White Street is
`
`a more traveled through street crossing the sauth end of Hartford from east to west. Land use anng White Street is
`
`largely residential in nature made up of mostly one, two and three family homes. There is also a public school one bioci:
`
`from the subject and several small commercial buildings [mostty retaii} at the intersection of White Street and Hillside
`
`Ave. All necessary commercial services can be found along New Britain Ave to the west or Maple Ave to the east. Pubfic
`
`transportation is readity availabie as a public bus routes run along both Hillside Ave and Maple Ave. The subject is
`
`located about 1.25 miles from interstate 84 and L5 miles from Interstate 91 . (See map above}.
`
`Property Productivity .
`
`The subject is a 2,172 SF commercial building built in 3940. Although it appears to have been vacant for severai years,
`
`the most recent use was as a florist shop and greenhouse. Based on an exterior inspection, MLS remarks and photos, the
`
`subject appears to be in fair overalt condition and has water/freeze damage. We did not find any income or expense
`
`data for the subject. The subject has off-street parking for 2 w 3 cars in a very tight parking iot. The subject is considered
`
`legal, nonconforming. The most likely buyer would be an owner occupant. The most likely use would be some type of
`retail use.
`
`\i.-‘s.LT,1i'\'I'llfIJi\‘ RIELARCH C01 tiVSi-LING
`
`

`

`AppraEsal:
`
`léi White Street. Hartford. CT / 2.172 SF Commercial Building
`
`Page ll of 26
`
`
`
`Physicalty, the s'tte slopes down gently from street grade. All utilities are available. Legally, the site's zone allows for a
`
`variety of commercial uses. From a financially feasible standpoint. demand for commercial building lots is soft. What is
`
`maximalty productive and its highest and best use as vacant would be for future commercial development lsee
`
`definitions of back of report].
`
`
`
`Considerations are best framed around how the most probable buyer would view current improvements. Would they
`
`be expected to remain as-Es? Are modifications required? Shoufd the improvements be demolished? Physically, the
`
`site demonstrates support for the existing improvements. legally, its use and degree of development is permitted.
`
`Financially, the subject's income-generating potential "as is“ is greater than the residual value of the lot,
`
`if vacant,
`
`after demolition costs. The subject's maximally productive and highest and best use is for continued use as a retail
`
`buitding.
`
`
`
`All three approaches to value were considered. The cost approach was not used due to the high degree at
`
`uncertainty in estimating accrued depreciation, Also, the lack of truly comparable land sales made deriving land
`
`value less reliable. The sales comparison approach was used as there was sufficient data to render a reliable opinion.
`
`The income capitalization approach was used as there was sufficient data to conclude a reliable opinion of market
`value.
`
`
`
`The exposure time — the time the subject would have been on the market leading up to the effective date of
`
`appraisal ~ is based on macro data of marketing times for similar properties as reported by the MLS as well as the
`
`known exposure time of the sales used.
`
`
`\“.-’\l.l. lr't ] Will‘s Rl:§l,r\l{tl l C1251 .l NSEUNC;
`
`

`

`Appraisal: 16] White Street, Hartford. CT / 2,172 SF Commercial Building
`
`Page 12 of26
`
`
`
`In the sates comparison approach, the value of a property is estimated by comparing it with similar, recently said
`
`properties in the surrounding or competing area. Inherent in this approach is the principle of substitution, which holds
`
`that when a properly is replaceable in the market, its value tends to be set by the cost of acquiring an equally
`
`desirable substitute property, assuming that no costly delay is encountered in making the substitution. Through the
`
`analysis of sates of verified arm's—length transactions. market value and price trends are identified. The sales utilized
`
`are the most comparable to the subject in physicai, functional, and economic characteristics that could be found.
`
`The basic procedure is as follows:
`
`-
`
`.
`-
`
`0
`
`Identify the most recent relevant sates from which to select and analyze truly comparable sates.
`
`Identify any changes in economic conditions between the date of sale and the date of vatue.
`Coloulate the cash equivalent price for any sale that includes favorable financing.
`
`Reduce the sale price to a unit of comparison such as the sale price per square foot or sale price per unit.
`
`0 Make appropriate adtustments to the prices of the comparabte sale properties for differences in relevant
`elements of comparison.
`
`.
`
`interpret the results to derive a value indication from the sales comparison approach.
`
`Three sates were examined. based on their degree of comparability to the subject. The sales are profiled in summary
`
`format followed by an adiustment chart and analysis.
`
`‘v‘Ath IA'l arm Rlfiijx’XRiCI l Cfflii‘fiLlstiflt;
`
`

`

`Appraisal: 161 White Street. Hartford, CT / 2,172 SF Commercial Building
`
`Page 13 of 26
`
`
`
`SUMMARY:
`
`Address:
`Address:
`Sale Price:
`
`Sale Date:
`
`Finance-Terms:
`Finance-Terms:
`Loan-to-Vatue:
`
`Location:
`Property Type:
`
`Site Size {AC}:
`
`Age/Condition:
`
`Building SF?
`Parking:
`
`SUBJfiCT
`
`161 White St
`Hartford
`WA
`
`Current
`
`N/A
`NrA
`BL: 70%
`
`Average
`Retail
`
`0.12
`
`78rFoir
`
`2,172
`Mln/Off-street
`
`Lana-Btdg Ratio:
`
`2.41
`
`SALES SUMMARY & ADJUSTMENT CHART
`
`SALE 'E
`
`SALE 2
`
`670 Wethersfield Ave .
`Hartford
`I
`I
`$180,000
`
`Feb-17
`
`201 Franklin Ave
`Hartford
`I
`$130,000
`
`Oct-15
`
`5;? 70K - Seller Financed
`Note not recorded
`94%
`
`$90,000 - 10 yr note
`4.5% - 5 yr ad}
`(>996
`
`Average
`Restaurant
`
`0.24
`
`18/Avg-Good
`
`3,035
`Avg/Off—street
`
`3.44
`
`Average
`Retail
`
`0.25
`
`59Mvgieooa
`
`2.1 18
`Avg/Off-Street
`
`5.14
`
`
`
`Sale History:
`Other:
`
`other:
`
`Other:
`Other:
`
`Price SF:
`
`r
`I
`AD
`Price Per SF:
`
`I
`
`:
`
`Property Rights Conveyed:
`
`Financing Considerations:
`Context/Motivations-Sa1e:
`
`Market Conditions (Time):
`
`Subtotal 7 Adjustments:
`
`Subtotal - Adj. Price Per SF:
`Location & Physical Factors:
`
`Subtotal- Adjustments:
`ADJUSTEb't’IItiCE/ISF: 3-
`
`9/14 - $42K = $19.34/SF
`Sotd out of foreclosure.
`
`Previous use was as 0
`
`HM - $275,000
`Pizza restaurant now.
`
`No year sale.
`Purchased by the
`
`Was previously a
`
`tenant {church}.
`
`florist/greenhouse.
`NIA
`
`grocery store.
`N/A
`
`$513!
`
`Nr'A
`N/A
`
`$61.38
`
`1.5;;
`$59.31
`
`0.00%
`
`0.00%
`0.00%
`
`m
`
`0.00%
`
`Location:
`
`Size (SF):
`
`Age/Condétlon:
`Site/Parking:
`
`Other:
`
`
`SALE 3
`
`.
`
`518 Park St
`Hartford
`$110,000
`
`Aug—15
`
`$91,668 w Seller Fin.
`6% - 4 year balloon
`83%
`
`Average
`Retail
`
`0.30
`
`95/Folr
`
`4,303
`Avg/Ofi-Street
`
`3.04
`
`No 5 year sole
`Included two lots on
`
`Hungerford St used
`
`for parking.
`MLS — 133 Days
`
`$25.56
`
`mg;
`$25.55
`
`000%
`
`0.00%
`0.00%
`
`m
`
`0.00%
`
`525.56
`
`0.00%
`
`5.00%
`
`0.00%
`40.00%
`
`9.00%;
`
`6.00%
`242*}
`
`'-
`
`\’:-‘\1_11.:‘\'1 MYN RESL-XRCH Cl__“11.11\!.5151.1NE3
`
`

`

`ApproTsol: 161 White Street, Horfford. CT / 2,172 SF Commercial Buirding
`
`Page 14 of 26
`
`
`
`Phobgrophs of rhe Subjecf and Sales
`
`Subiec? Property
`
`Sale 2 — Adjus1ed Safe Price: $27.62/SF
`
`Sale 3 — Adjusted Sofie Price: $24.29/SF
`
`Locdfion'Mcp of_2‘he__$ubjecr (ind Sales
`
`
`
`
`
`'570 Wet-hermefd Avg
`
`COMPARABLE No. 3
`518 Park St
`'-
`
`_
`
`_
`
`_
`
`_
`
`_"
`
`'
`
`'
`
`'
`
`_
`-I
`
`.
`' Haunt}
`convauaxenm
`.' 201 Frankiin Ave .
`'1 12 miles NE -'
`
`COMPARABLE N9. 1
`
` V.“\U143??th RULARCH {TUNNEL
`
`

`

`Appraisal:
`
`lél White Street, Hartford, CT / 2. l 72 SF Commerciat Building
`
`Page 15 of 26
`
`
`
`Comments on 1the Sales
`
`Much like the subject, all three sales are smaller singte story commercial buildings. #l and #3 required upward size
`
`adjustments as larger buitdings tend to sell for less per SF. #1 and #2 adjusted down for age/condition. This took into
`
`consideration not only effective age and condition, but also levet at finish. central AC, etc. All three were superior to the
`
`subject in terms of off-street parking; thus the downward adjustments. The unadjusted sale prices range from $25.56/SF to
`
`$61.38/SF. The adtusted sale prices range between $24.29/SF and $27.62/SF.
`
`Sate #t is a 3,035 5? restaurant building a little over one mile east of the subject. This property previously sold in January
`
`20t 4 for $275,000 or $90.6l/SF. Atthough we were unable to confirm it, it appears that prior sale included a grocery store
`
`business/inventory that was operating out of this location at the time.
`
`Sale #2 is a 2,] 38 SF retail building just over one mile northeast of the subject. It was purchased by a church who had
`
`been leasing it since at least 2005: thus the downward adjustment for context/motivattons-sate.
`
`Sale #3 is a 4,303 SF retail building a little over t.5 miles north on Park Street. The sale inctuded two vacant tots behind the
`
`building on Hungerford Street. The two vacant lots are used of parking. Per MLS remarks this building needed updating. It
`
`was originaliy listed in the MLS for $l 39,900. After 133 days and one price reduction, it sold for $l 10,000.
`
`Conclusions
`
`Based on the evtdence presented.
`
`it
`
`is Our opinion that the subject has a market vatue of $26.00 per square foot or
`
`{$26.00 x 2,172 SF) $56,472. rounded to $56,000 Market value opinion of the fee simple estate of the subject via the sales
`
`comparison approach, as of March 6, 2018, is:
`
`fIFTY SIX THOUSAND DOLLARS
`
`($56,000)
`
`
`VALt l,-’\"t‘it.fi*N Rt:.‘al.-"\RCI t CLE‘UNSTIJNLE
`
`

`

`Appraisal: 161 White Street, Hartford, CT I 2,172 SF Commercial Building
`
`Page id of 26
`
`
`
`The income approach is predicated on the notion that the buyer will receive future benefits in the farm of an income
`
`stream: known as the principie of anticipation. The income capitalization approach attempts to quantify the present
`
`value of
`
`those future benefits. The conversion of future benefits may be accomplished either
`
`through direct
`
`capitalization or through yield capitalization. Yield capitalization converts future benefits {income} into value by
`
`discounting those {yearly} benefits into a present value via 0 Discounted Cash Flow iDCF} Analysis. In this appraisai.
`direct capitaiization is used.
`
`Actual and Projected Data '
`
`'
`
`'
`
`The subject is currently vacant. Income and/or expense data for the subject was not found. Although buildings like the
`
`subject tend to be purchased for owner occupancy, we did find several current lease atternatives for the subject’s
`
`commercial space that range from $8.34/SF to $16.85/SF with the tenants paying for utilities in most cases. See table
`below.
`
`
` --
`66M§Aiiiii§£ié'._it£iirs§"'éaiiiiiiiiékciniltsiiiiiC-é
`sr
`gmmes
`RENT
`ADM
`
`i. 539 Zion St
`
`2. 3580 Main St
`
`3. 73 Hillside Ave
`
`4. 195i Park Street
`
`5. 180 Franklin Ave
`
`6. 442 New Britain Ave
`
`7.
`
`3 New Britain Ave
`
`i,582 SF
`
`i,700 SF
`
`1,050 SF
`
`1,737 SF
`
`1,044 SF
`
`2,000 SF
`
`1,?66 SF
`
`Tenant pays eiectric
`
`$8.34/SF
`
`includes all utilities
`
`Tenant pays utilities
`
`Tenant pays utilities
`
`Not stated in iisting
`
`Tenant pays utiiities
`
`Not stated in listin
`
`$10.59/$F — Pending
`
`$1 1.43/SF — Asking
`
`$13.82/SF
`
`$14.66/SF
`
`$15.00/SF - Asking
`
`16.85/SF
`
`Given the subiect's age. size. condition, location and less than ideal parking. we project a market rent of $4.50/SF triple
`
`net. These projections are based on strong and consistent rental/tease data reported above. Our projections assume the
`
`tenant pays for alt expenses associated with a tripie net lease.
`
`Vacancy & Coliection toss '
`
`'-
`
`'
`
`Estimated at 10% including periodic vacancies and collection losses. This is in keeping with market vacancies in the area.
`
`Expenselérojections
`
`An operating expense ratio of approximately 30% {see table below} is projected for the subject. This is wetl within the
`
`range of expense ratios from the sales data as well as other retail buildings we have appraised.
`
`Capitalization Rate.
`
`Estimated at 1 1.03% based on market parameters for mortgage and equity.
`
`VA Li iA'i'lf 3N RIXEA RCH CO? i‘NfsiTLl NC
`
`

`

`Appraisal: 161 WhiTe Slreel, Harlford. CT / 2.172 SF Commercial Building
`
`Page 17 OT 26
`
` '
`
`" '
`
`'
`
`'
`
`Capkalefievelopmemusin
`
`6.0%. 30 Yrs
`
`E UiT Dividend Re:
`
`MT Terms:
`
`70%
`
`X
`
`X
`30%
`OveraliCa iTalizaTion RaTe R0
`
`0.0719
`
`0.2000
`
`=
`
`=
`=
`
`20.00%
`
`0.0503
`
`M
`0.1103
`
`
`.- _.
`__
`_'.élu'dflbh'Moog!E’Shéwfigiir'dliiéébi”556.3006--6'i'.$2"5;7_85i$¢r'.‘sfq. _.
`STABILIZED OPERATING PROJECTION
`
`Commercial Space:
`FOTenTial Gross income TPGI}:
`Less Vacancy 8. Collection Loss:
`EffecTive Gross Inc (EGI):
`OperaTing Expenses:
`
`2. i 72
`
`RENT - NNN
`
`$4.50
`
`10.00%
`
`Management
`Reserves
`
`10.00%
`20.00%
`ToTal Expense
`
`Expense Ralio:
`
`30.00%
`
`NET OPERATING INCOME (NOE):
`Divided by The Overall RaTe (R0):
`
`PROJECTION
`
`$9,774
`$9,774
`M
`$8,797
`
`$880
`$1 759
`$2,639
`
`$6,158
`0.] 103
`
`
`
`CONCLUSION — Based on The evidence presenTed. H is our opinion Thai The subjecl has a market value of $25.78 per
`
`square fooT or ($25.78 X 2,